Why churches should be more cautious than anyone about reopening…and that’s not living in fear
It seems like we’re seeing the light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel, for now. The curve has been flattened about as much as it can be. Although COVID-19 is going to be one of the leading causes of death this year, at this point it hasn’t been the apocalypse that some early models have predicted. After over two months of lockdowns, with tens of millions in a precarious place financially and mentally, it seems like it’s time to get into the process of reopening.
This period of time has been especially hard on churches. Churches and churchgoers are in a tough spot. God commands us to gather as a church, but we’re in the middle of a historically unprecedented event. Church leaders have spent much time and prayer wrestling with how to adapt. Almost all churches have virtualized their meetings, but online church is not the same as meeting in person. It’s not an adequate replacement, and excessive isolation can be not only mentally but spiritually dangerous.
Every church body wrestled with the decision to confine ourselves to online interaction. Now, every church body needs to wrestle just as hard with the decision to return to gathering in person. It’s hard to think of a more fertile breeding ground for pathogens than a church service. Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people gather in the same room. We sing, project our voices, shout “Amen,” and interact at length for an hour or more.
Recent incidents have shown that churches are ripe places for fast, widespread outbreaks. A few days’ worth of events at a church in Arkansas resulted in 35 infections and three deaths. A single choir practice in Seattle sickened 53 and killed two. A birthday party and funeral in Chicago sickened 16 and killed three. In South Korea, the majority of cases came from a single religious sect. This is no surprise, given what we now know about COVID-19. It spreads mostly indoors via aerosol particles generated by not only coughing and sneezing, but also singing and speaking. When it comes to the danger of spreading this virus, a church seems little better than a sports arena. Some megachurches are probably worse.
This is why churches closed. It wasn’t because of government persecution or crippling fear. It was because we don’t want our gatherings to be a breeding ground for the spread of a deadly illness. The church should be associated with healing, comfort, and spiritual instruction, not with spreading illness. Over the last two months, I think we’ve forgotten that.
Caution is not driven by fear, but by love
A refrain I’ve heard from Christians who want to reopen immediately is, “We can’t live in fear!” By this they mean that, by keeping our churches closed, we are cowering before a virus and failing to trust in God to keep us safe. According to a University of Chicago poll, 55 percent of Americans who believe in God believe that God will protect them from being infected. Even if he doesn’t, the worst-case scenario for a Christian who catches COVID-19 is that they die and go to heaven. So why self-isolate when that’s the worst that could happen?
There are two glaring flaws in this way of thinking. The first, and most obvious, is that if you catch COVID-19, it doesn’t stop with you. Everyone who comes in contact with you, and everyone who comes in contact with those people, may now also catch COVID-19. They may be considerably more vulnerable to severe complications than you are. This is what everyone who refuses to wear a mask, every pro-life protester who unironically shouts “My body, my choice!” fails to grasp: Diseases spread. All it takes is a single infected person. If the primary epicenters of outbreaks are churches, what kind of message does that send to the world? What kind of message would it send to our vulnerable family and friends?
The second flaw is that trying to preserve life is not “living in fear.” Just ask the apostle Paul. He constantly put himself at personal risk for Christ’s sake and was well-aware of the worst-case scenario, writing to the Philippians, “To live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). But a few verses later, he then tells them, “but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body” (v. 24).
Paul certainly took risks in his missionary journeys, but only as many as were necessary to carry out God’s call. When he was in danger, he often fled to a safer place (e.g. Acts 9:25, 14:6, 17:10). This wasn’t because he was afraid to suffer or die; it was because he knew God had more for him to do. There were people who needed Paul to preach the gospel to them and minister to them.
Your welfare, and even your life, is not just about you. It’s about everyone else who might benefit from what you do. Yes, we who are Christians know that if we die, we gain the immeasurable joy of being in the presence of Christ. But there is a reason we’re not all racing to get on planes, fly to North Korea, and shout “Jesus is Lord!” in the center of Pyongyang until we get thrown into labor camps and executed. It’s because God has a mission for us in this world. Would we deprive others of the benefit they could receive from us by insisting on needlessly risking the life and health of ourselves and others?
Do we really believe that the church isn’t a place?
Lifelong churchgoers are used to hearing that the church is not a building, but the worldwide assembly of God’s people. Yet it’s the buildings that are at the center of this controversy. Yes, the assembly of believers is essential. But the church is more resilient than the location of a congregation, and the church’s mission field is far more vast. As a result of the pandemic, many churches and individuals have stepped into the global mission field of the Internet for the first time. Perhaps God is showing us opportunities through this that we would never have otherwise pursued. Our ability to carry out God’s mission does not need to be curbed by the lack of a physical location.
The unprecedented response to this pandemic has forced us to radically alter how we carry out God’s mission. But the heart of the mission is still the same: to share the gospel, protect the vulnerable, and love our neighbors as ourselves. The church is remarkably versatile and resilient. As 2,000 years of history have shown, the church can adapt to any circumstances anywhere and carry out its mission. It doesn’t do so primarily through material resources, but through the faithfulness of its people. As John Kingston puts it in Relevant Magazine:
“However, if you are alive in faith and hope, in that moment you really are being the Church. You’re taking part in an ancient and beautiful legacy of loving society’s most vulnerable and marginalized by protecting them from the spread of a dangerous virus.”
Maybe it’s time for your church to reopen. Perhaps COVID-19 is past peak in your community, and medical authorities have determined that the risk of reigniting an outbreak by gathering together is minimal. Churches in those communities should begin a cautious process of reopening, with proper safety measures in place. In accordance with God’s command, members of those churches who can safely do so should begin meeting in person again. But for churches in communities that have not reached that point yet, insisting on reopening anyway is likely to be a hindrance to God’s mission for the individuals in it and the church as a whole. God’s mission is best carried out with life-sustaining prudence and wisdom.
