Since September, I’ve served a small church in a midsize midwestern city as its interim pastor. Like most congregations in the US, the flock is of at least two minds about how to “do church” during the time of Covid-19. But the pressure in our progressive context is to go exclusively virtual. Here is a letter to the church leaders explaining how to think and lead well in this perplexing time. Even if you disagree with its line of reasoning, I hope you find it helpful for sharpening your own approach. As an aside, two cheers at least for fellow pastors who do legit theology every day in the unrecognized form of thoughtful emails to the flock. Maybe one day yours will be bound up like Augustine’s letters and read for generations to come. You never know.
Brothers,
One of my underlying convictions in this discussion is that thinking through how to respond to Covid-19 is a complex business, not a simple affair. That needs to be said first, because more often than not we don’t realize how messy moral reasoning is. Depending on a host of factors – temperament, age, workplace, political affiliation theological convictions – your instinctive approach may be quite different from mine, or Jim’s, or Jane’s. On one end of the spectrum, it’s obviously foolish to meet in person because it is safest to stay at home. On the other, it’s a lack of faith to not meet in person, pure & simple, and a major failure of leadership to have left the church without in-person Word and sacrament worship for months.
Who’s right?
I start on the more empirical side of things, and move toward theology and the church.
What is the danger we face right now?
There are two dangers, not one. The obvious danger is physical: the threat of disease and of death, either my own or others’ caused by my transmission of the virus.
The other danger is spiritual: the effects of the pandemic and of our not-meeting during the pandemic on the people of God, both soul-by-soul and as a body. More on this below.
What about the physical danger? About 286,000 Americans have died of Covid-19 so far. That’s a big and dreadful number. However, the vast majority of deaths have occurred among the part of the human population that is already reaching the limit of its mortal life. The chart below is from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 8 December ’20.
Observed case fatality rate by age (Wisconsin)
As you can see from the chart, the observed case fatality rate (= percentage of confirmed infected people who perish) in Wisc. is 0% for people under 40, 0.1% under 50, 0.3% under 60, and 1.1% under 70. It then rises significantly in the 70-90+ age bracket. But, that is when death ends a long normal life regardless of Covid-19, both in our common experience and according to Scripture. Ps 90.10: “The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.”
How does Covid-19 compare to other deadly viruses? The estimated global case fatality rate is about 1%. (However, because of the large number of asymptomatic carriers that go uncounted, the real case fatality rate is lower than that.) The 2003 SARS-CoV epidemic, though smaller in scope, was deadlier by proportion: 9.7% CFR. The still smaller 2012 MERS-CoV outbreak was even worse: 34%. The historical case fatality rate for the flu is 0.1%. These WHO statistics suggest that we’re dealing with something less like SARS and more like a (sometimes, and erratically) severe case of the flu.
Remember the goal of public health measures
The goal of social distancing, stay-at-home orders, masks etc. is not to protect everyone from catching Covid-19, but to “flatten the curve.” Many will catch it; and even once we have a vaccine, we probably won’t be able to eradicate the virus entirely. Hopefully, it’ll mitigate its severity in a way similar to how we deal with the flu, which once upon a time was the deadly 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic. (By the way, it’s still deadly: about 60,000 succumb to it in the US every year.)
The goal, instead, is to keep the spread of Covid-19 enough under control that our hospital systems have adequate space, personnel & equipment to treat critical patients.
I propose we apply the same logic to the church-question. If the goal is zero transmission, then shut-down and stay home. But should that be the goal? Not if there are other goods to be secured, in addition to preventing transmission. It’s the consideration of these distinct and often competing goods that complexifies the decision-making process.
Many-sided risks + multiple goods to secure = complex decision-making process
Real human life is not as simple as asking, “What do the experts say?” and then implementing their guidance. That’s because real human life is not the province of a single field of expertise. If you ask a public health expert, an economist, a factory worker, and a pastor how to respond to Covid-19, you’re going to get different advice. Not necessarily contradictory, but different – each looking at the problem from his or her particular angle on life. The MD/PhD tells you to shelter in place, etc. The economist tells you the economy can’t handle another shutdown and also reminds you that the national debt is skyrocketing. The blue-collar worker can’t get paid if there’s a shutdown because he can’t work on his laptop at home. And the pastor: he’s real worried too; but that’s for later in this document. Is one of these views “right”? Maybe they all are, in different ways. That’s the point I’m trying to make here. Covid-19 decision-making is complex, not simple.
Nor is life as simple as asking, “What’s safest?” Too much risk, and humans die: but too much fear of danger and we end up dying too. Simple example: we don’t want anyone to get Covid-19; but we also need to eat. That’s why, throughout the pandemic, we’ve designated some jobs as “essential services” that are worth the risk involved in keeping open because of the reward they bring to society as a whole. Some have been obvious: grocery stores, hospitals. Some less so: liquor stores, porn shops. Church, we’re told, is not an essential service; it is “safest” for the churches to stay closed and to hold services online.
Now, that should give you pause. For one thing, it’s a problem that society can jump so quickly to the conclusion that America can get along fine without the church of Jesus Christ. For another: from our perspective inside the church – from the vantage of faith in the Word of God – we know that man does not live by bread alone. We know that what’s “safest” for the body is not necessarily safest for the soul. And we know that a human being is not just the one or the other, but both. So, something might be “safe” for the body but dangerous for the soul. And a good that might deeply benefit the soul could put the body in danger. The ultimate instance of the latter case – and so the most helpful for sharpening our theo-spiritual logic – is martyrdom. It feels safest to avoid it, for the body; but that kind of safety will land you in hell, unless you learn to flee it like the plague it is. On the other hand, for a trousered ape whose highest good is self-preservation, martyrdom is madness: but bodily death endured for the King who conquered Death leads to eternal glory. Maybe it’s hard to see at first, but the same spiritual logic is at work in less extreme instances too. It feels safe to refrain from the Supper, but it may be that your abstention becomes a poison for your soul. It feels safe to stay at home, but your self-preservation may harm the sister who lives alone, is depressed, and longs for koinonia with her sisters and brothers as well as her Lord. And so forth. Whoever wants to save his life will lose it. Whoever loses his life for Jesus will find it. It’s the grain of wheat that falls into the earth and dies that bears fruit.
But back to the main point: individual, societal, and church-level decision-making about Covid-19 is complicated not simple. “The” right thing to do may seem obvious to you, because of how things look from where you’re sitting. But it might well not seem that way to your brother. He may, in fact, sense a risk that you can’t see, or a reward that you’ve forgotten about. That’s why we need each other, and why need to be able to reason with one another in truth & love about our response as a church to the pandemic.
Why one “expert” thinks we need to meet (partly) in-person
I’m an “expert” too: a pastor. What Dr Fauci or Gov Evers says is important, but not finally decisive for us in the Church of Jesus Christ. Because we have a better grasp of Reality than they do, and I hope a better grip on it as well. (The name for that grip is “faith.”)
As the strange and unrecognized expert named “pastor,” I believe we need to meet in person because the public worship of God by the embodied people of God through the flesh & blood of the Mediator by means of preaching & sacrament is an essential service. In fact, it is the essential service that mankind is created to perform: the “divine service,” as Lutheran and Orthodox Christians call the liturgy. My biggest fear in this crisis is that the Church has too easily acquiesced to the dominant “immanent frame” of secular culture. To the world, worship does not matter; but for us exiles in Babylon it must be otherwise. “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!” Comfort, health, physical wellbeing, even life itself are not ultimate goods to be secured at any cost. We know that, even if the world doesn’t. We know that the “one thing necessary,” the one Reality worth living and dying for, is God. The world needs us to remind it of the reality of God. So does the church.
Rushing to cancel our small, socially-distanced in-person gathering would, I fear, communicate to the faithful that the physical/temporal concerns of this life outweigh the weight of God and the promise of eternal life in Christ. On the other hand: persisting in gathered worship might just be the best way we have to bear witness to the victory of Christ over Death, and to the fleetingness of this age and this life, and to the ultimacy of the God we worship and adore.
But can’t we do all that while worshipping online?
No, we can’t. Online worship – while an acceptable stop-gap measure – is not a substitute for embodied, liturgical, Word-&-sacrament worship. That is why our denomination has drawn a hard line in the sand when it comes to the Supper. There are some things we can’t do virtually, like eat and drink the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. Now, prior to Covid-19, I bet most of us thought there were plenty of other items in the “not online” category besides the Supper. How many times have we had to address the challenge posed by the stay-at-home Christian who listens to Tim Keller or John MacArthur or whoever, says his prayers, and sees no need to participate in the life and worship of the humdrum local church? That logic holds for gnostic pseudo-Christians, but not for the orthodox Church. For we are the embodied people of the God who became flesh and still has the scars to prove it. To be who we are, we have to gather together physically in the name of Jesus the Word-made-flesh to do things like stand to sing, sit to reflect, kneel to confess, touch to pass peace and show love, stand to hear the Word of God, sit down with the saints to hear a non-superstar flesh & blood pastor preach, get washed in water, eat bread and drink wine, receive the blessing and then process physically out into the world we are sent to turn upside down together through the gospel.
Is it wrong to worship online? Some think so, and we do well to take their concerns seriously. I don’t think it’s wrong as a stopgap measure. But I fear the unforeseen long-term consequences for the Church that lurk in our shift to virtual reality. That is part of why I feel as strongly as I do about the imperativeness of meeting partly in person, and of anchoring the service in the in-person gathering at the sanctuary.
What are the fears that make it feel safer to not meet in-person?
We need to tell the truth about the fears that are pushing us around right now. Best I can tell there are at least three:
Fear 1: either I or other people will suffer and die as a result of meeting in-person. This is an understandable but irrational fear. As of now, with our strict protocol, we are capped at 3% capacity, masked & social-distanced. Much safer, I think, than going to the grocery store or riding on the bus. And, no one is required or pressured to come. This is a responsible course to take. Arguably, too cautious: I think it’d be fine to cap at, say, 25% capacity.
Fear 2: we’ll divide the church into two factions, the in-person crowd and the virtual stay-at-homers. This risk is real, and this fear is legitimate. Pastors and church leaders are sweating this all across the country. The question we have to ask is: are the gains to be had in meeting partly in-person and partly virtually worth the risk of division? If “No,” end of conversation. If “Yes,” then we ask next: how do we counteract the potential for division? How do we maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? How do we turn this challenge into an opportunity for us to grow in faith, hope, and love?
Fear 3: we’ll suffer criticism or even reprisal from other communities we’re part of: work, university, governing authorities. (This is not hypothetical: one family has let me know they won’t be coming to church for some time, not because they don’t want to, but because of the social pressure to stay home imposed by their community.) This risk is real too, and this fear understandable, but I do not believe it is legitimate. We are not used to incurring the hostility of the world. But we are called to it, in the path of faithfulness to the Lord. And the gain to be had is huge. When we shrink back from the hostility of the world and retreat into the safety of a quiet church enclave, witness doesn’t happen. If, however, we take our stand, ready to suffer loss for the name of Jesus, the world takes notice.
What gracious virtues do we need right now?
Because the challenges are many-sided, our emotional responses are too. Fear. Impatience. Recklessness. Pride. Divisiveness. Unbelief. And much, much more. So there isn’t one single virtue we need more than others. Here are a handful to pray for and pursue:
Faith. Faith is the grace in the soul that enables us to see the unseen, to believe that the spiritual reality of God and of his Kingdom is in fact Real. We always need the gift of faith, of course, but in time of trial it stops appearing the luxury it never really was. We live in the time of the Secular Age; no one who “matters” thinks God is real anymore, or least that he matters for the public things of life “in the real world.” Brothers, we need to believe in the reality of God. To believe that he is sovereign over the entire pandemic. To believe that he is with us. To believe that he is our portion and our cup.
Wisdom. Wisdom is the virtue that enables us to see, appreciate, and respond wisely to reality – to what’s actually there. It’s different from knowledge, or “science” (from Latin scientia: knowledge). You might be an expert in your field, chock-full of knowledge, but not much use in the real life because you can’t translate that book learning into practical wisdom. Expert “science” – whether from MD/PhDs, psychologists, or theologians – is useful for getting us the raw data we need to make sound judgments and prudent decisions. But it’s the virtue of wisdom, not the data itself, that enables us to render sound judgments and act faithfully as men of God and presbyters of Christ’s Church.
Courage. 1 Cor 16.13: “Be watchful, stand firm in the Faith, act like men, be strong.” May we never be reckless or foolhardy, plunging into danger in the name of an empty faith. On the other hand, may we not be found faith-less cowards when we stand before the Lion to give account of our under-shepherding in his name. Fear cannot be helped. But it can be conquered. And conquer it we must, by faith in Jesus the Victor over Death. If we cannot face Covid-19 with the courage of faith, how will we stand fast when yet more difficult trials come upon us?
Love. 1 Cor 16.14: “Let all that you do be done in love.” As we shepherd the flock, we must love the whole church well: those who want to meet in-person and those who don’t, those inclined to peace and the troublemakers, those who see matters clearly (that is: who agree with me) and those who don’t (that is: who disagree with me). Enter here Rom 14-15, and all Paul writes there about the strong, the weak, and the peace of the Church. “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: ‘The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me’ … Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”
Proposed steps going forward
Continue to meet partly in-person, partly virtually on Sunday mornings, with the service physically anchored at the sanctuary
Keep an eye on local stats, and adjust accordingly
Work extra hard at one-on-one shepherding. This includes gently but firmly addressing the extremes in the flock as we meet with them
Add monthly in-person only observance of the Lord’s Supper, following the conclusion of the part in-person part virtual service of the Word
Phil Anderas is a Reformed pastor and missionary theologian with operations based in Milwaukee. He holds a PhD in Theology from Marquette. He is a member of the St. Basil Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
