Negotiating essentials
Church leaders need to be proactively involved in government pandemic response
Church leaders need to be proactively involved in government pandemic response. By Laena Maunula Otte
In fall 2009 I met with several dozen Toronto seniors to talk about the outbreak of H1N1 (swine flu). It had reached pandemic status in June, and I was on a team of researchers studying the ethics of pandemic response. We talked to seniors because we valued their insights into how the outbreak impacted their lives, and we wanted to include their perspectives in our recommendations. The importance of faith communities to the overall well-being of seniors resonated with me.
Those lessons still held true a few weeks ago when I was phoning seniors from my church to check in during Covid-19 lockdowns. Physically the seniors were doing fine, but they were aching emotionally, socially and spiritually. They longed to meet again with other believers.
As a public health researcher, I understand the need to respond quickly to a pandemic and the reasons for restricting large gatherings. I even wrote my PhD on pandemic risk. Yet I’m conflicted when authorities categorize religious gatherings the same as nonessential businesses. Are we talking about scaling back the eternal work of caring for souls, at least temporarily, in the name of saving lives?
Ethics of closing churches
Quarantine and social distancing are old weapons against infectious disease. The instructions in Leviticus to separate those with leprosy sound a bit like an early form of social isolation. The rapid lockdowns of the past months, put in place to buy some time for health care systems, are a new experience for many of us, but in fact a very old idea.
Lockdowns and other pandemic decision making are fraught with uncertainty. How is the virus transmitted? How many are currently infected? Which groups are most at risk of serious infection?
When considering social restrictions, how do authorities weigh the real pain restrictions cause against the estimated damage of allowing the virus free reign? To what extent can authorities force restrictions versus negotiating them?
Decision making for a novel disease like Covid-19 is hard in particular because data is scarce. In the absence of strong scientific evidence, planners just don’t know which strategies will be most effective.
Dr. Maxwell Smith is codirector of the Health Ethics, Law and Policy Lab at Western University. When Covid-19 appeared, he says, “We really had no idea the extent to which closing all schools would curb the spread of this thing, or closing all restaurants and bars or churches. They just seemed prudent decisions given what we know about the transmission of the virus.”
The “precautionary principle,” he explains, is the idea that when we’re unsure we should err on the side of caution. This was the approach taken during SARS, with many jurisdictions invoking quarantine even while still debating if it would be effective.
In the absence of solid evidence, planners need to be “working very carefully with different populations to find out their level of agreement,” says Smith. “I think it’s a negotiation.”
When is negotiation required?
How can community groups weigh in on pandemic decisions that impact them? Smith points to the example of community gardens in Ontario. Initially classified as recreation spaces, community gardens weren’t included on the earliest list of essential services allowed to remain open. A network of gardeners disagreed.
“They petitioned and lobbied the government to say, ‘Actually, this is critically important for our community.’ And they actually overturned it,” says Smith. “I think that’s a good model.”
Many church groups have been involved in similar discussions while supporting public health goals to reduce illness and death.
Such civil engagement is part of God’s call on Christians, says Bruce Clemenger, President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. “In the words of Jeremiah, we are to seek the blessing of the city we’re in and contribute to the public good in what we do.”
In any pandemic responses Christians also need to prioritize our public witness. “How do people regard Christ because of the behaviour of His people during this pandemic?” asks Rick Hiemstra, who works with Clemenger as the organization’s director of research. That can be tricky as our patience wears thin with restrictions that can begin to seem arbitrary or unfairly burdensome on certain groups.
There is wisdom in deferring to appointed authority and in acknowledging the limits of our knowledge. We are the Body of Christ, not a group of population health experts, nor are we political leaders. Though the Church isn’t in a place to determine what pandemic responses are employed, we can, and should, provide input into how those responses are rolled out within our local contexts.
Pandemic restrictions: What versus how
There is an important distinction here between a given action and the way it is performed.
Social distancing and quarantine are trusted tools in stopping the spread of disease. But if they are implemented in ways that place excessive or intolerable burdens on churches or are incompatible with core Christian values, we should pursue opportunities to graciously work together with authorities to find better solutions – ones that meet both our needs and public health objectives.
“It behooves us to engage with the government,” says Clemenger. “We’re part of civil society, we’re part of the broader charitable sector and we are active in our communities. And certainly when the government is moving to restrict activity, the preference would be for governments to consult the various sectors, and assess the impact and assess the risk.”
Wading into the murky waters of pandemic response requires wisdom and humility, and starts with assessing which elements of Christian life we believe to be essential, and then the extent to which they can continue during pandemic restrictions.
Michael Haykin is professor of church history at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Heritage College. He says, “Corporate worship in the broad Christian traditions has been understood to be essential,” although there have been times under extreme seasons such as outbreaks of bubonic plague in the 17th century where it was paused or altered.
Do we need to be physically gathered to sing or observe communion? Or can we partake at a distance? Different denominations will answer these questions differently.
John Pellowe, CEO of the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, agrees these are crucial questions. “This is a time to reflect deeply on our mission,” he says. “Maybe God is wanting us to redeem this time by challenging the way we view ministry.”
Church history also has lessons to teach us. Haykin says sometimes Christians behaved shamefully during some previous pandemics. Those 17th century plague outbreaks he mentioned led to an 18th century medical consensus that claimed the bodies of poor people harboured disease, leading far too many Christians in England to ignore and abandon the poor. How Christians continue to love our neighbours as the Bible calls us to when prevailing medical expertise puts limits on how we can relate to our neighbours – it can be complicated, so we need to be clear about our core Christian mission.
Preparing for future outbreaks
Novel infectious diseases like Covid-19, SARS, MERS, Zika, West Nile and Ebola are on the rise, so it’s important for us to be thinking about these issues now.
Many Christians have felt frustration and tension over labelling religious gatherings under Covid-19 as nonessential. The best way for us to ensure more nuanced approaches in language and lockdown responses is to constructively discuss these issues with decision makers. Because of the complexity of the problems that society faces in a pandemic, it’s crucial for religious and community groups to contribute to policy conversations. That’s also why government must consult such groups. Now is the time to make it clear that pandemic decisions – from wording to the various other “how” aspects of implementation – should not be left entirely to medical and political experts.
Without successful engagement by diverse Christian traditions, we may find ourselves stuck again in the future with ill-fitting classifications or insensitive restrictions on necessary aspects of religious life. The diversity is important because, again, different Christian traditions (not to mention other religions) have different articulations of what “necessary” means to them.
In the short term, Christian engagement on these issues can help shape how Covid-19 restrictions are eased on churches. Down the line it can influence how religious activities would be limited if we enter a second pandemic wave. Policymakers need Christians to help them understand more deeply the function, purpose and diversity of the Church – and, as Clemenger says, “Remind the government about the important contributions churches make to spiritual resiliency within communities.”
Scientific evidence is necessary for developing pandemic responses, but it isn’t sufficient on its own. Pandemics are health issues, but they lead to real emotional, social and spiritual effects. The church is well positioned to speak to those issues. Now is the time for us to prayerfully consider the potential costs of future outbreaks and lockdowns, plan how we can best mitigate their impact, and educate our political leaders and fellow citizens on the ways Christians practise our faith and love our neighbour.
How does the eternal work of caring for souls relate to saving lives in a pandemic?