The Biblical Case for Why Masks in the Church Assembly are Unethical

Following the previous articles, here and here, which treat of fundamental issues regarding any purported relationship between Covid and the Church, another much overlooked reason why masks are inappropriate in the Church assembly is that it violates a basic principle of God’s Law.

Leviticus chapters 13 and 14 give the Lord’s instruction on how to treat those who may be sick with an infectious disease. In short, those sick or potentially sick with an infectious disease are always instructed to be quarantined. The basic principle is given thus:

And the priest shall examine the disease and shut up that which has the disease for seven days. (Leviticus 13:50; cf. Leviticus 13:4-5, 21, 26, 31, 33, 54)

Furthermore:

He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp. (Leviticus 13:46)

In other words, the medical principle is that of quarantining the sick. Moreover, the sick may require some sort of marker to identify them as sick, so that people know to be careful:

The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, 'Unclean, unclean.' (Leviticus 13:45)

Not only are his clothes and hair to reflect his condition, notice also that he is supposed to cover his upper lip, which could be construed as a kind of masking. It shows an awareness of infectious diseases passable through the nose and mouth to others.

The fundamental distinction at play here is between clean and unclean:

And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and if the diseased area has faded and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only an eruption. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean. (Leviticus 13:6; re: clean, cf. Leviticus 13:13, 17, 23, 28, 34, 37, 39-41, 58-59; re: unclean, cf. Leviticus 13:3, 8, 11, 14-15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 36, 44-46, 51, 55, 59)

Nowhere do we see those without symptoms commanded to dress or be treated as if they are sick.

We do have a case where the clean are commanded to leave the location of a possible unclean disease: 

Then he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, "There seems to me to be some case of disease in my house." Then the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes to examine the disease, lest all that is in the house be declared unclean. And afterward the priest shall go in to see the house. (Leviticus 14:35-36)

But this does not connect even remotely to the principle of marking the sick with torn clothes, loose hair, or face covering. It also shows that the clean, who were in the presence of a potentially unclean location, were not instructed to quarantine themselves or take the markers of uncleanness. Nor do we see the priest being commanded to cover his face.

What is implicit in the distinction between clean and unclean is the idea of separation. In other words, clean and unclean should not be confused. What is diseased is to be distinguished from the apparently well, and they are not to be treated alike. The markers of the clean are not to be given to the unclean, nor the markers of the unclean to the clean. It is similar to men’s and women’s clothing:

A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

Confusion of such fundamental distinctions is an abomination, which is a principle at the heart of God’s condemnation of homosexuality:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

And:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

In other words, the Biblical point at hand is that to confuse what God distinguishes, or to separate what God sees as one (as the concept of race implicitly does to humanity), both alike are an abomination. Thus, to put the markers of the unclean on the clean is similarly abominable:

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. (Leviticus 19:19)

Notice that not even the wearing of a cloth garment made of two kinds of material accords with divine law, the point again being to understand that God’s will is unto the preservation of the integrity of each class of persons, animals, and things.

Therefore, at the very least, it is unbiblical to ask people who have no symptoms of an infectious disease to dress in the clothes of those possessing infectious diseases. And to compel them to wear them is godless and unethical.

Lastly, as a final consideration, those who stray from the principle of Christian love and freedom and therein seek to compel God’s people to wear masks in the assembly, not only contrary to the spirit of God’s Law, thereby also break the law of love, for love “does not insist on its own way,” and moreover “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:5, 7).

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Novel Commandment? Coronavirus, Masks, and Access to Christ

“Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers” (Isaiah 58:3).

No one can add to the Creed. No one can invent novel commandments. A Christian’s right standing with and within the Church is established on the right confession of the Faith, consistent attendance at Services, and regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. The truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and handed down in the Church is the established norm for Christian life. This is summed up in the Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, and is binding upon the conscience of the Christian. No one has any right to add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). In this light it is worthwhile therefore to heed St. Jude’s admonition to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Across the planet, our local parishes debate over issues of policy and policy-implementation. Regional bishops, local priests, and parish councils all struggle with a cacophony of concerns, and so they wrestle in their various overlapping spheres with unsettling questions concerning what is safe, what is necessary, what is wise, what is scientific, what is sanitary, what is loving, what is risk, what is authoritative, what is legal, what is essential, and so many other questions. And so bishops, priests, and laity, all seek to do what appears right in their eyes. The result? Chaos. For “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). And even this smattering of considerations only scratches the surface, and so the saying becomes true of many of us, that “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). One thing, however, which seems fundamental to the foregoing considerations, and goes beyond distinguishing between such things as churches and schools, churches and seminaries, churches and businesses, is the simple question: What is sin?

Citing the New Testament teaching found in 1 John 3:4, St. Philaret of Moscow in his Longer Catechism (Question 156) answers the question, "What is sin?" stating: "Sin is the transgression of the law."

What is the Law? In Question 65 of the same Catechism, St. Philaret states that the doctrine of charity is "In the Ten Commandments of the Law of God." Question 485 states that the means we have to know good works from bad are: "The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments." Questions 489-491 state in sum that the Ten Commandments are the chief and general commandments, and that they are binding upon all Christians.

Significantly, Question 572 asks of the extent of obedience to those in authority: "How ought we to act, if it fall out that our parents or governors require of us any thing contrary to the faith or to the law of God?" Himself quoting Acts 4:19 (and hearkening more generally to that section of verses 1-31), St. Philaret's answer is plain:

In that case we should say to them, as the Apostles said to the rulers of the Jews: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; and we should be ready, for the sake of the faith and the law of God, to endure the consequences, whatever they may be.

That being the case, it is clear that the law of God as summarily contained in the Ten Commandments, being moreover the essence of the Biblical notion of love, is explicit, established, and inviolable. Furthermore, the conscience of man, evidencing the inward law of God written on the heart of man by God (Question 486), acts inwardly as a judge to either accuse or else excuse him and so cannot be bound by that which is not of God. Of course, fallen man being subjected to ignorance, delusion, and passion, his conscience is not infallible and therefore must be conformed to God's law, in this case the explicit law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments, they being reinforced in their binding authority. In sum, the law of God understood in its objective outward and conformably inward senses cannot be superseded or suppressed by any law of man, the Apostles even refusing to cease preaching Christ but suffering rather to be jailed - as simultaneously a civil and a religious matter - than to cease publicly proclaiming Christ.

Having answered the question as to what is authoritative in the life of a Christian, it is essential to point out the divine Law's finality as an authority regarding the duty of man. For example, the Preacher declares, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And not only is such obedience to the commandments the whole duty of man, God's holy law is also irreformable, as He even commands:

“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

And again:

“You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it!” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

In other words, it is not possible to invent new commandments. Nor can new sins be invented. Only by a necessary consequence can novel circumstances cause the unchanging principles of God's commandments to be applied to novel circumstances.

With that in mind, it is worth asking: Is mask-wearing a new holy law? Or put another way, is not wearing a mask a novel sin? Can a Christian's conscience be bound therefore to mask-wearing? This is not a petty question, for some would appear to be attempting to erect a novel commandment, and bind men's consciences to something that is not found in God's commandments. Since sin means to transgress God's law, and sin alienates man from God, then identifying sin as sin is no trivial matter. For excommunication can only occur in reference to the transgression of God's law and to unrepented sin. One cannot be excommunicated for not sinning, but for sinning. As it currently stands, many are essentially adding to God's commandments, even adding to the Creed that must be confessed in order to be a Christian in right standing with God and consequently in the Church. As it stands, the path to the Chalice has a new obstacle: Masks. 

Now, there is no authority in man or council to add to or subtract from God's law, the Creed, or from God's holy Word. We must be humble beneath them. The very Gospel book is placed on the head of the bishop as he is consecrated, proclaiming that his identity and his authority are under the Word of God, submitted to it utterly. In this way the Church proclaims that the essence and content of authority in the Church, the nature of a bishop's very overseeing, is naught but an expression of someone else’s will, namely the Lord Jesus Christ's as taught in His holy Word and preserved by His Bride, the Church. (It is worth noting that in principle the canons of the Orthodox Church are expressions, extrapolations, and/or articulations of Biblical teaching, not parallel additions to the deposit of faith, not a parallel authority. See Questions 17, 23, and 24 of St. Philaret's Longer Catechism) Therefore neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor parish council can add to or subtract from what is received in Scripture and Tradition. God's commandments must remain inviolate, for “the sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

With that in mind, it is not possible rightly to bind the conscience of a Christian by adding additional criteria through which he must qualify himself so as to approach the Chalice. Not wearing a mask cannot be turned into something that must be confessed as if it were a sin, which is to say contrary to the faith. No one has the power to make not wearing a mask such a sin, and therefore the mask cannot be turned into a confessional item upon which failure to confess (i.e. failure to wear) renders one barred from access to Christ in the Chalice. It is a simple point, but incontrovertible.

Therefore, it is impossible in principle to bind the conscience of a Christian such that he must wear a mask in order to be inside the Church and thus the local parish in a right-believing manner. It is evil to functionally excommunicate a right-believing Christian for not doing something that is not a sin, that is not of the essence of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." As Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In other words, we cannot add hindrances to a faithful Christian’s approach to the Chalice for the sake of a novel commandment of men.

As Christ warns:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

As He further explains:

He called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10-11)

This teaching of Christ was expressly directed at condemning arbitrary, man-made purity laws. It is also worth considering that this revelation was in relation to questions of hand-washing, which is also today considered a matter of basic hygiene and etiquette:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:2-3, 6)

As helpful - and even necessary - as it may be to wash one’s hands (or, for that matter, wear a mask), teaching it as a commandment such that one’s conscience is bound, and one’s access to God hindered, makes void the word of God and so is flatly rejected by Christ. As God in the flesh, Jesus knew perfectly well that washing one’s hands helped reduce disease, and yet He still persisted in rejecting it as a condition of right standing with God. And this principle is inviolable. We cannot add criteria which places an obstacle between Christ and His faithful children. This means that masks cannot be rendered a necessary condition for being considered a faithful Christian, and being faithful is the only true and binding condition by which a person may rightly stand in the Church. The faithful cannot be excluded from access to God for not abiding by the “commandments of men.”

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

By excluding the faithful from access to God by attempting to force the faithful to wear masks in order to enter and attend the sacred Assembly, we invent novel conditions by which Christians must abide. This is contrary to faith, for we cannot add to the deposit of faith. We cannot write new sins on the books, establish new commandments, bind consciences, and practically excommunicate the otherwise faithful according to the fluctuating mind of fallen man’s insights and policies, no matter how helpful those insights and policies might be, for only "the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

The Hard Middle: A Way Out of Intractable Conflict

What everyone knows is that the conflicts surrounding our current understanding of COVID are legion. Generally speaking, it has become clear that there are two sides, two methods for dealing with it. Each side, naturally, has more or less extreme versions within their camp, but by and large there are two sides, and these two sides each think the path of victory is through seeing the championing of their particular viewpoint.

But as a phenomenon of political conflict, what can be gleaned from observing these two sides? In other words, What can be observed of the two sides - while not at the same time entering into agreement or disagreement with either? Can this approach afford any helpful insight? I would say so, and I would like to take the next few paragraphs to explain why I think this is the case.

Phenomenologically, what can be observed is that there are two sides, two sides reflecting on and commenting on the nature of a disease. Thus, we are immediately confronted with the significant but simple fact that both sides are centered on the same problem. That fact is both a help and a complication. It is a help because it means the argument is shared, but it is a complication in that the problem can’t be removed by simply clarifying that both parties are talking about a different subject.

Now, in addressing the problem presented by this disease, both sides see hosts of consequences that are extremely critical. Here, however, is where the complication may in fact become helpful, which will be made clearer below. Both sides are submitting empirical arguments for their respective cases. Empirical arguments and hypotheses suggest a realm of fact, which ought to take the debate out of the realm of personal opinion, but here is where a certain temptation arises.

The temptation for each side is natural enough: to win their argument by making the better, stronger case. If one can resist this temptation long enough to observe the fact that both sides are citing the same types of sources, such as doctors, scientists, medical studies, and scientific research, then one will observe that this is not a settled scientific or medical argument, a situation unlike the debate of whether the earth is round or flat. This is significant because it indicates that both sides are seeking to be responsible and relevant, respect the same kinds of sources, methods, etc. Neither is arguing their case by referring to irrelevant or outdated sources.

This is the complication that ends up being helpful, because its very intractability will end up meaning that neither side ought to be legislated at the political level. Politicians are neither doctors nor scientists, and to side with one group at the expense of the other points to an arbitrary use of power and therefore an inherent injustice. Legislating unconfirmed science is to use the power of the state to force an unconfirmed conclusion, a political act which could very well cause far more harm to the cause of discovering the actual solution through peaceful and multi-faceted debate and research. 

It is a mistake to use the political sphere to decide matters of science, or force into public practice unverified conclusions and hypotheses. The strength of both sides thus indicates that the question cannot as of yet be settled. Like pulling rocks out of a rock slide that traps people underneath, the idea of “just doing something” is obviously folly, for to pull the wrong rocks risks the greater harm to those trapped underneath. In other words, to side arbitrarily in such a medically controversial case risks the possibility of magnifying the problem beyond all proportion, even if non-action would also cause (unconfirmed) problems.

The outcome of this present dilemma therefore means that the complicated and empirically oriented medical and scientific arguments are pushed into the arena of individual persuasion, which is to say personal belief, even if that personal belief is backed by expertise and (admittedly incomplete and controversial) medical research. Too many experts disagree in diametrically opposed ways. People are confusing belief about a medical situation with political legislation and policy advocacy. Involving the machine of politics means that what is fundamentally a matter of scientific and medical inquiry becomes a matter of political force.

Both sides have abundant support for their positions; both sides see their positions as preventing doomsday scenarios; both sides are trying to act out of compassion; both sides are trying to avert injustice. This fact being observed indicates that the only viable political action is to remain politically neutral until there is greater medical and scientific consensus. Legislating the belief of the experts on only one side of an issue necessarily creates havoc, for politicizing science and medicine in this way creates political ramifications unrelated to the science and medicine, even obstructing their progress.

This is the hard middle. It is not a via media, but an attentive neutrality, which is to say it responds to the controversy by stating there is not yet enough agreement in order to move to either side. Here one must remain firmly in the middle, refusing the temptation to seek to legislate a one-sided inclination.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

Fight, Flee, or Freeze: The Biological Reason Why the Media Will Not Give People Hope

An economic reality is that without reliable viewership, the professional media would cease to exist. In this sense, the media's job is to sell a “news product,” and so they implicitly cannot be trusted to communicate hope, and there's a biological reason for this. The reason is that the nervous system's fight-flight response is hardwired to respond rapidly to fear of threat, and so the news is biologically weighted to favor fear, for fear reliably keeps people's attention to the “news product.” It is an unnoticed biological fact, but the news survives on a chemical dependence on adrenaline. 

Hopeful news doesn't retain viewership steadily or reliably, and that is largely because the parasympathetic “rest/digest” nervous system response is slower to respond than the sympathetic “fight/flight/freeze” nervous system response. If the media relied on the slower parasympathetic nervous system response, time would run out and no one would wait around long enough to maintain the news company’s necessary viewership. Therefore, as long as one listens to the news, for that long one will be exposed to their consistent intention to rapidly stimulate fear’s fight/flight danger response in order to chemically hook that person on their product. 

That being said, news agencies must use facts, but it must also be understood that facts are only necessary as tools that the media must use in order to frame fear stories, i.e. in order to stimulate the fear response. If the stories were not rooted in facts, the fight-flight response would not be reliably activated. Thus, in order to survive, the news maintains a reliance on fact as a vector, or carrier, of fear. Of course, anger may also be elicited, and this is often used in order to stimulate loyalty to the news product, that of joining together in defense against an enemy. This is why the media typically aligns with either one political party or another, for the sake of consistency of fight/flight response. If they kept changing “sides” in a metanarrative then they would confuse their audience and interrupt the activation of the body’s fight/flight response. That kind of confusion does not sell a news product. Confusion only maintains viewership when it can be associated with threat and so used to stimulate fear.

Patrick Henry once said, "Fear is the passion of slaves." In light of the above, it is clear how biology plays into such a passion, and why the media would use fear to bind its audience into an indefinite, quasi-loyal viewership. The news survives on producing a chemical dependency in their audience. The fight/flight/freeze sympathetic nervous system response is the body’s rapid attention-grabbing defense and survival mechanism that floods the body with adrenaline. Alternatively, good news and happy stories do not equally arrest the attention, and stimulate a much slower parasympathetic nervous system response of rest/digest/enjoy. This is the biological grounding of the media’s motivations. The news will therefore predominantly and exhaustively occupy itself with stories of fear and threat, and so in order to protect oneself, one must be attentive to this phenomenon, limit exposure to it, and take any necessary precautions to mitigate its influence on the soul, for God does not want us to live in slavery to fear:

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (Romans 8:15)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Hope of Return: The Coronavirus and Getting Back to Church

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