Skip to main content

Open


They say that one should never discuss religion or politics. This post is about both. 

 Yesterday afternoon’s statements from the White House briefing room, without interpretation or analysis, are that the President declares that all churches and places of worship to be ‘essential’ and should be open. 

 There’s plenty to dig into here, most especially the public health ramifications of such an announcement, but also whether the President has the legal authority to make and enforce such a decree. I encourage you to do your own homework on that. What I want to say is a bit different.

 The fundamental flaw in the President's announcement is something more central than public health or politics or constitutional legality. It starts with the assumption that houses of worship are closed. 

 They aren’t.

 From Pastor Lura Groen of Abiding Savior Lutheran Church in Columbia:

Worship is essential! But our building is not. Thanks be to God we can worship together online, without gathering to spread a virus that is killing people. 

The church is open! But our building will remain closed until it is safe to gather again. We worship online, we give money and volunteer with organizations that are meeting the needs of the world, we study Scripture and support each other from a compassionate and life-giving distance.

The church is open. And the synagogue. And the mosque. They do not need their buildings in order to be alive in their respective communities. Religion is not weakened by acknowledging the realities of science. Anyone who peddles that line must think that their God is very weak indeed.

Not all of my readers belong to faith communities. I don’t write this making that assumption. But Friday’s announcement will have an impact on them whether they like it or not. Additional groups of people getting together in situations which have been proven to incubate super-spreading beyond their walls means that chance encounters will increase the likelihood of infection. 

Evangelism is supposed to be about sharing the joy of your beliefs. This is far from it. Being willing to spread disease in order to prove that no one can tell you what to do is not a choice that puts God at the center. Nor does it show love of neighbor as oneself. It is “me, me, me.”

I saw a statement online yesterday that was the epitome of this ego-centric philosophy. On a field of pink, emblazoned with hearts, it went something like this:

I would rather die singing His praises in His house than be safe at home alone.

Pretty words. Ugly reality. It should really read:

My right to sing His praises in His house outweighs your right to protect yourself and your loved ones from a disease that has no cure.

Is this religion? I am doubtful. Is it politics? Maybe. Are we all called to care for one another as much as ourselves regardless of religion or politics?

Absolutely.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Teacher Gifts

Today is the last day of school before the Winter Break. It’s a good time to remember the far-reaching nature of our public school system. You may not have children. You may have sent your children to independent schools. It matters not. You will be impacted one way or another. Yesterday I read a long thread on Facebook about several waves of illness in the schools right now. There’s influenza A and norovirus, I believe. And of course there’s COVID. Apparently in some individual schools the rate of illness is high enough for school admin to notify parents.  When I was little the acceptable holiday gift for a teacher was one of those lovely floral handkerchief squares. (I don’t know what it was for male teachers. They were rare in my elementary years.) These days the range of teacher gifts is wider and I have fond memories of Target gift cards which I have written about before. I think it’s safe to say that giving one’s teacher Influenza, norovirus, or COVID is not the ideal holiday...
1 comment
Read more

F ³: We Are Not Entitled

  A college student went missing. His family and friends were distraught. The community was encouraged to be on the lookout and spread the word.  Days passed.  They must have been agonizing days for those who cared about the missing student. Thoughts that foul play had been involved cannot have been far from their thoughts.  Then, at last, the student was found. Alive. The news was shared with the public.  So. Much. Relief. A family had been reunited with their child. Even though we know that life is complicated, I think it is okay to accept this as a happy ending and leave it at that.  But the world of social media says no. For every expression of joy at the news came questions and even judgement. It became clear to me that some folks felt entitled to an explanation. They wanted the backstory. It’s as though they felt that, by enlisting the help of the public on social media, the authorities now owed them all the details. Television dramas often weave curr...
2 comments
Read more

Separate and Unequal

  Remember “Separate but equal”? Remember how that really meant that Black schools languished in  broken-down buildings without adequate heat or toilet facilities, with cast-off, ragged learning materials, underfunded and largely ignored? The Supreme Court struck that down in 1954. The evidence was clear that separate was not equal. Plessy v Ferguson had led to - - no, endorsed - - deeply unequal schooling and opportunities. We tend to think of Brown v Board as being purely about racial integration. It was not.  It was about the logical consequences of segregation. And they were not, not, not equal. The ruling in 1954 didn’t transform public education for non-whites into a land of milk and honey by any means. But it articulated some essential truths in a way that made including everyone a legal precedent which could be relied upon and built upon. It was better than what came before it but it rested upon unsteady ground. It did not necessarily change the hearts or minds ...
1 comment
Read more