I've been seeing this plotline for awhile, and the notion that this is normal is pure fiction. They are outliers; feel free to call them out for their irresponsibility, but absolutely do not use them to make any kind of generalization.
>Some megachurches have opted out of in-person services and turned to live streaming entirely.
Correction: Just about every church that I've heard about has gone online. Certainly possible that less-affected states are a week or two behind the curve, but most understand the weight of this and are acting accordingly.
Unfortunately, "most" is not sufficient here. In South Korea the majority of cases were spread through a small handful of church gatherings. Consequently I have come to think that media coverage such as this post is a net benefit to society, although it is undisputable that they cast many innocent people in a bad light.
I don't think it'd be too hard to note that these churches are outliers. The author uses 'some' to cover three churches that are still meeting in person, and 'some' to mention that two other churches are not meeting in person.
Spend a few minutes at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.html, see which one deserves the use of the word "some". Why couldn't the author determine which was more representative and thus accurately portray what most churches are doing? If I'm right and most churches have closed, wouldn't it be more persuasive to read an article that says "everyone who believes what you do is doing this, you should too"?
If 3 out of a sample of 5 are meeting, then they aren't outliers.
I agree, it would have been good to do a proper study, but surely you agree that the fact that these three are open is newsworthy, no? It's not science, it's journalism.
Did you similarly complain about the rigor of all the articles last weekend written about people being irresponsibly crowded in parks and on beaches?
How would you report it then? I mean, I get that you're reading this as an attack on christians, but... my atheist eyes aren't seeing that. I see a short piece with a handful of (mildly horrifying) quotes from these three churches, followed by a note explaining how others are behaving more responsibly. Isn't that how this should be done?
We are used to the news format of presenting some who support side A, and those who are opposed, making it look like there is a balanced case. Seeing these stories makes it feel like we are getting balanced news. This makes for good TV.
However if the two "sides" are unequal, it gives the illusion of evenness when there is no actual equivalence.
You don't see this misrepresentation when it leaves an impression of an even split between churches that follow public health standards and those that don't. You do see this misrepresentation when it leaves the impression that there is a scientific debate about global warming. But the problem is the same in both cases - the format itself leads to systemic misrepresentations of the world.
I get the point, but I still don't see how you would prefer to report the relatively newsworthy fact that these three churches are holding services during a pandemic. How would you have framed the article?
With an opening line of, "Most churches have responded to COVID-19 with measures like live streaming their services. But a few holdouts disregard the dangers..."
This makes it clear that we are now talking about how the crazies view the world. Which slants everything else that people will respond to.
It transforms "those crazy Christians" into "the crazies among the Christians". Which draws a more accurate picture of most Christians.
Fair enough, I'll buy that and agree that this would have been a better headline.
To be fair though, and getting to the point I was teasing: it's very odd to find us having this argument about "implications" about groups in media coverage in defense a a community that is itself rife with equivalently unrepresentative coverage of immigrants, progressives, feminists, etc... All of these groups are constantly made to answer for the crimes of their most extreme members in the right wing press. It just seems a little... off that all of a sudden HN seems to care so much about this kind of journalistic integrity.
You speak of HN as if HN was a single individual with a unified mind.
My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE or https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views.
I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-vall.... Admittedly with outspoken exceptions.
As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.
It's also annoying how conservatives use epithets like "snowflake" to describe liberal grievances while being extremely sensitive about their own grievances. But we live in the age of grievance politics. Politicians have figured out that a feeling of being wronged or persecuted is one of the strongest ways to cause a hatred of "the others" and to remove rational thinking.
What's painfully ironic is that he reads it as an "attack" on Christians, when it's actually an ethical brotherly life-affirming attempt to prevent Christians from killing themselves AND other people.
When Christians kill other people or themselves, they go to hell (if you take their believes at face value). They should be THANKFUL to the people who are "attacking" them so they don't kill other people, kill themselves, then go to hell.
With some effort, someone could document which megachurches are holding meatspace services. They could perhaps even do a prospective matched control study.
It's definitely a problem from a public health perspective, and that's why there should be legal measures to stop such large gatherings.
However, these types of articles are often used to cast aspersions on all Christians. That was essential the point of the parent comment. Why single out megachurches? You could find plenty of similar examples in the business, social and government realm of large groups continuing to meet.
Why not? From my observations, megachurches tend to be very different from many other Christian churches, including in theology. Christians aren't all the same, but there are some definite things that many, if not most, megachurches have in common, that they don't share with other denominations. (Starting with "denominations", in fact: megachurches usually don't belong to one.)
The phrase "the Media's stance" refers to the media as a whole, the average of all media. By definition the average will be between the least and the greatest, which means by definition the Media's stance on a topic will always be too P-slanted for Q-ists and too Q-slanted for P-ists.
Fun fact: by the popularized definition in the media, most of your Catholic and Orthodox churches would be "mega churches" as well, despite sharing little in common. They get lumped together statistically, however.
>Though going to church might be the worst of all options since church goers tend to skew more to the older side of the population.
Actually, probably not, which is why "megachurches" is an important qualifier here. From my observations, megachurches tend heavily to be independent and evangelical, and tend to have much younger members. They also tend to have a lot of (Christian) rock music as part of the services. The old people don't join those churches; those people are still in the mainline Protestant churches they've been going to for many decades, which have traditional service, and don't preach to you that God loves rich people more.
It wasn't a small handful of church gatherings, it was spread countrywide by a cult hell bent on recruiting, often via underhanded tactics because people know better than to join them if stated outright. One person got infected, infected a gathering and they dispersed everywhere. Boom.
Every church that I am aware of here in Iowa (both locally and back home for various people I know) has been closed for three weeks now. That includes the mega churches.
Gatherings of more than 10 people are banned right now, and I don't think there are any churches interested in flouting the local government.
Plenty of people want to go even if it's not safe for them, and others don't want to go but want to respect their leaders. I've found that each time we made a decision to tighten up in-person meetings, it brought way more relief than anger.
We really had to spend time convincing my older in-laws that such large gatherings were a really bad idea. A couple days later, their church did the same thing most sport and music events did - online only. I can't image an organization would want the potential liability of running anything with a large mass of people right now.
Yep, that's what I've seen across my area (Boston) and friends' communities. I appreciate the writer mentioning that there are many megachurches that have gone virtual. I admittedly still find it weird to have service online, so it's going to take me some time to get used to it.
It was difficult for most churches figuring out the technical difficulties at first, but things have been smooth the past two weeks.
Also, if anyone has ever been interested in checking out a church, this is probably the best time to do it - you can do it from the comfort of your pajamas, and tons of churches have virtual services. Happy to share a few well-known churches/pastors if anyone is interested.
Any number of events drawing in many hundreds of people is a serious problem that can rebound on many thousands of people later on.
It's good that some states are actually effectively stopping such gatherings but this serious problem apparently remain and may appear as a flood of refugees into these states.
Note, one of the States mentioned as having large megachurch gatherings in the article is Louisiana, which was 4th in terms of numbers of deaths in the last 24 hours, not really behind the curve at all.
The article mentions churches in LA, OH, and FL, but there was one in PA that isn't even a megachurch but was big enough to get an article that was basically the same as this one on the local news site. So they're definitely out there, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're anything but exceptions.
TBF I think that exceptions are fair game. I'm thinking of spring breakers in Florida. Sure most college students are taking the virus seriously and sheltering in place, but the if there's an appreciable number who aren't, that is newsworthy.
This is quite a gamble from what I can gather. If the infected congregation of 500 hopes to seek medical attention, they will not find it. Central has no hospitals, however Baton Rouge (the next nearest city) has a few. Tony is hoping that if his cavalier defiance of what he perceives to be a political agenda pays off, he will be able to avoid what his congregants have not: unemployment. He is rolling the dice to get blood from a stone.
Tony's gamble is dangerous and calculated, as is evidenced by his strategic use of busses to block media coverage. If a massive outbreak in Central occurs, his congregation will not be forgotten. People will remember Tony and his flock long after the federal governments attempts to "flatten the curve." They will remember flooded hospitals and associate any decline in regional medical care with him and his attendees. Whats worse, Tonys name will be on the lips and hearts of anyone in or around Baton Rouge who cannot get care, or who has watcehd a loved one perish to this disease.
At worst, Attendees will be shunned from employment, outed on social media, and ostracized from their community. Tonys quick attempt to turn some cash in a recession will ultimately send him out of the city on a rail as other faith based communities out him as nothing more than a huckster, not a leader. Tony might even see a few civil suits for his efforts.
Then there are the people who lose family, parents, or children. They wont think twice about torching the busses he hid behind. he'll stay in their memory long after the collection plate is passed this sunday.
Hence “MEGA church”. There are several in the Atlanta area. One is actually 12 campuses, seating ~2,500 each, typically with a live pastor at one being telecast to the others on life-size projections (effect of virtual presence is pretty convincing). Others hold thousands at one sitting with multiple services.
550 isn’t a lot. My elementary school had more than that many children in it. And we were a Catholic school, and thus all attended the same church with our parents boosting the numbers way higher than that.
To put it lightly there are McDonalds restaurants with a higher capacity than 550.
I live in a religious county in Iowa, and while all the churches have stopped meeting, some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation is a violation of religious freedom. Nobody is violating it though.
> some people have expressed concerns that the forbidding of congregation is a violation of religious freedom.
There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that applies here.
Yes, if the government--at any level--was forbidding people from meeting for religious reasons for an indefinite period simply "just because," that would be a violation of our freedoms and something to be gravely concerned about.
Restrictions on religion not based on the religious belief itself have been allowed since the founding of our republic. You can't have a religion where a "sincerely-held belief" is that one parishioner in attendance gets murdered. Or that smashing in people's front doors is a sign of holiness. Religious buildings, while exempt from property tax, must still comply with building, electrical, plumbing, and life safety codes.
In this situation, given that it is content-neutral--all gatherings of size are prohibited--and time-limited and in the furtherance of a major social interest (inhibiting the spread of a brand new virus), I think it withstands Constitutional scrutiny.
I think what doesn't make sense to me is the fact that assembly is required for democracy to work, and the people have to accept their loss of assembly with an accelerated pace of facts before there's any time to digest.
The people must simply trust that forfeiting a necessary aspect of democratic health will be correct in hindsight.
This concern was ameliorated by a) pointing out that any restrictions have been applied without any discrimination in that regard, and b) with the full assurances of the state of Pennsylvania that the work of the church is vital and should continue in this crisis, even if in-person services are not currently a part of that mix. (There was a conference call and everything!)
There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom. However judges have generally decided that civil liberties can be restricted to a limited extent if the government establishes a compelling public interest and there's no other solutions are possible.
> There's no question that this is a violation of religious freedom.
I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
Forbidding people to gather together as part of religious observance is definitely a restriction on their religious freedom.
In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere.
In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does.
However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.
I think you (and others who downvoted me) missed the point of my comment. It is absolutely legal for the government to restrict religious freedom in certain limited ways when there is a compelling reason to do so.
I did not miss that and I did not down-vote you. I have not been a church goer since I was a child and have not spent much time thinking about religious freedom so I was trying to understand when you say it is obviously a violation.
Totally, although the idea that people should self-isolate is effectively apolitical as evidenced by it's acceptance across the entire world -- with governments from far-right to far-left, secular to theocratic, all preaching the same practice, likely to their own detriment.
are you saying you're surprised or object to the idea that there are political implications to a pandemic?
It's really funny how there is this natural aversion to politics within (not only) American conservatism but American society at large, as if the involvement of politics somehow diminishes the authenticity of some event instead of being the natural platform to organise collective action.
Surprised? Not at all. As long as society relies on people having a shared myth to separate out "them" from "us," politics will be an inescapable part of us.
It's also really funny how different people can extract completely different meanings from the exact same sentence. It's also really interesting how prevalent this phenomenon is.
For example, I see nothing in that sentence that alludes to an aversion to politics.
Not that I support what he's doing in any way, but I'm sure he means that the narrative and the reporting around the virus is political.
There's a myth circulating that the danger of the virus has been exaggerated for political purposes. I'm sure this is what he's referring to.
I doubt he would hold to that opinion if he saw it with his own eyes, so I am assuming he hasn't yet. Unfortunately for the members of his church, they are all about to see it with their own eyes because they are in New Orleans.
"Cultural Parasitism: An ideology parasitizes the mind, changing the host’s behavior so they spread it to other people. Therefore, a successful ideology (the only kind we hear about) is not configured to be true; it is configured only to be easily transmitted and easily believed." - https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1225561166518390785
This is the effect of the Fox News propaganda machine. This was literally a "Democratic hoax" two weeks ago. Many people are desperate to believe in the pap that flows out of that network.
The only thing these pastors who are keeping churches open is money. To ignore every health professional out there right now means they don't care about their flock at all.
Unfortunately, I doubt this is true. Conservative churches have largely become a proxy for conservative politics, and a lot of conservative media still questions the methods and motives of the coronavirus response.
Imagine people that are so deeply convinced that the media is lying to them and this is a plot to undermine his agenda. That narrative absolutely exists and there are many out there who believe it.
I think this is the most likely answer. The only people I know who aren't taking this seriously are friends who get their information from conservative sources.
I don't think any churches are intentionally risking the health of their congregation.
Congregants of megachurches in Louisiana, Ohio and Florida attended services in defiance of social distancing orders
That's pretty intentional.
I think I get what you mean, that the decision isn't being made with the intention of risking their health. But they are risking the health of their congregations, because they think they know better.
The two tend to go hand in hand. Being strongly money-motivated almost invariably requires lying to yourself in order to maintain a sense of not being a bastard (which almost no-one, not even the most egregious figures, tend to believe about themselves). The best sales people believe their own lies. Greed is a cognitive malfunction.
The problem is that the media often does lie to us or at least cherry picks the bits that align with their narrative. It’s basically become a boy who cried wolf kind of situation. Many in the mainstream media have cried wolf so frequently that now that there is a wolf many people are not willing to listen.
Unfortunately, he called it a hoax and conservative media spent a good deal of time downplaying the seriousness of corona. I think that initial reaction has done a lot of damage even with everyone changing their tune.
Not that I agree with Trump or his handling of all of this but he didn’t actually call it a hoax [1]. Repeating this makes conservatives even more convinced “the media” is just out to get him.
"One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax."
It's the usual word salad, but I think "Trump says coronavirus is a hoax" is a reasonable interpretation.
Sure, however he didn’t directly say the virus is a hoax. So you are projecting an unfair interpretation because you don’t like him. That’s just going to further convince conservatives that liberals don’t ever give the president a fair shake.
He is now, but he was downplaying a week or so and is still raising hopes for a miracle cure to a quite irresponsible extent. This sort of mixed messaging is extremely unhelpful and it’s not surprising that people are confused.
Trump isn't really that conservative, he's just an egomaniac without any real principles. The conservative nutjobs have just latched onto him and made him their new savior, for now.
Notice how Trump's story changes rapidly. Early on, he was saying it was a liberal hoax or something. Now he's taking it seriously because he wants to look like a great leader in a time of crisis. The only thing he's consistent about is wanting to make himself look good. Luckily, for now, that's moved to actually doing the right things for the most part to deal with this (though it would have been a lot better if he hadn't screwed up so much earlier). True conservatives aren't like this: they are very principled, even if I don't agree with their principles at all. Somehow, they just haven't figured him out yet, or they're just using him for their own ends.
Conservatives are just as concerned as liberals about the prospect of hundreds of thousands of people dying. The only difference is they tend to have confidence that the government will be able to handle the response effort.
What about the Lt Governor who said that his grandma would Gladly die for America as it were. Playing down the level of current and coming deaths and passing off the loss of those who ultimately do die as necessary for the continuing prosperity of the remainder is the mainstream conservative position.
Some people are morons. That doesn't change based on whether they are conservative or liberal.
The majority of my news comes from NPR (IPR locally here in Iowa). The main people that comment on their Facebook page are clearly liberal and clearly also some of the biggest idiots you've ever met.
Being in a position of leadership also doesn't automatically mean you're not a moron.
What I know is that the Republican President and also the Republican Governor of Iowa are taking this very seriously.
Also I highly recommend people actually watch the press briefings because what I've found is that any time I actually listen to what Trump says, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than whatever clip the media generally chooses to play out of context.
I have watched most of the briefings in full. He speaks in a disconnected rambling senile fashion. He regularly misspeaks, tells lies, uses a question about how he fucked something up as a way to spend his time either congratulating himself, blame shifting, or talking about other people praising him. This rarely actually answers the question.
He spent 2 months first ignoring then lying about the situation and then spent a month giving terrible advice and lying some more.
Most recently he touted unproven treatments as triumphant cures while claiming that we would be back on track by Easter. Press coverage far from taking small things out of context has in many cases had to cover a lot of ground to cover the sheer amount of stupid falling like half checked food from the presidents mouth every time he appears in public.
That's funny. I find his press conferences to be rife with petty asides and braggadocio. Normally it's just obnoxious, but when he's dodging clarity on what people need to do about Coronavirus, I find it to be incredibly unnerving.
Ok, now you’re just trolling us. I watch Trump’s press conferences. The word salad is still word salad. He clearly has no idea how to handle this and is incapable of taking responsibility or decisive action.
That the party for smaller government because (large) government is ineffectual and intrudes on individual rights is the one more confident that the government will fix things is entirely oxymoronic.
I’m happy to hear how exactly my statement is biased.
Fox News just fired Trish Regan for stating that Coronavirus was “another attempt by Democrats to impeach Trump.” That statement came just a few weeks after Trump himself claimed that concern around the virus was also a liberal hoax. Days after making that statement, he said that cases would drop to zero in a few days, we’re now in the hundreds of thousands. When asked why he cut the pandemic preparedness unit at his National Security Council, he claimed he had no idea that happened, despite video surfacing that shows him talking about those cuts in 2018. Doctors in NYC are days away from having to decide who lives and dies because there won’t be enough respirators for everyone, they’ve already set up refrigerated trailers to store bodies. Testing still isn’t widely available even though we were all told it would be weeks ago.
We’re now at hundreds of thousands infected, thousands dead, and no end to this in sight, given that the president has now pushed social distancing measures to the end of April.
> I’m happy to hear how exactly my statement is biased.
Re-reading your comment, I think probably the main issue I have with it probably just comes down to us thinking of different people when we see the word "conservative".
I agree that people exist who fit exactly what you described. I just think that's a much smaller slice of the population than (I assumed) you believe.
> We’re now at hundreds of thousands infected, thousands dead, and no end to this in sight
Welcome to a pandemic. Americans today aren't used to being vulnerable. If anything, it's just a reminder of how thin the facade we project on the world actually is.
>Welcome to a pandemic. Americans today aren't used to being vulnerable. If anything, it's just a reminder of how thin the facade we project on the world actually is.
No, the problem is that America has an incompetent government. China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have shown how to handle this thing with reasonable degrees of competence. We have not.
Plagues and diseases have been around since long before humans. Dealing with them is one of the functions of civilized society, and ours is failing, while other nations are doing far better jobs. But of course, Americans never want to look outside their borders at how other countries do things.
Pretty damn well in my opinion. Mobilizing and coordinating resources is a hell of a task. The response was going to start off as a shit-show, no matter who was in charge.
In my opinion we're ramping up and course correcting very well.
At this point I refuse to even engage with conservatives that still support this administration.
I know this is bad but I don't really see the point in pretending to take them seriously - you have to be reallyreally intentionally ignorant at this point to ignore the continuous lies and blatant criminal activity from the Republicans while still being intelligent enough to post complete sentences on hacker news.
I don't see how I could come to any other conclusion than their supporters either being intentionally very ignorant, or just very ignorant.
The administration made numerous statements early on that insinuated the virus wasn’t serious. Trump himself called it a hoax, said it was like the regular flu, etc.
HEB, a Texas-based grocer, was talking to partners, running disaster scenarios, and preparing their supply chain as far back as January[0]. A private company was a month ahead of the administration despite all of the preliminary reporting and intelligence communications around the virus. There’s absolutely no excuse for the way the government bungled this.
While Trump was calling the virus a hoax, companies were already preparing for what was to come.
This may be true of conservatives qua conservatives on the world stage. Conservatism in the US, however, has become married with a very particular dysfunctional form of identity politics. And that does tend to deny any science that contradicts the policy prescriptions of its brand of oddly selective libertarianism. The stats are pretty clear on this with US 'conservative' attitudes to public health, climate change, etc.
I 100% agree that conservatives value life just as much as liberals. But surely you must agree the "this is just a flu" narrative has been more common among conservative news sources than liberal ones.
I'm involved in leadership for a church that closed in-person services two Sundays ago. We were probably one week later than most, but I can tell you that money did not enter the conversation at any point.
Nope. We're a small one. But just the fact that we're talking about megachurches already limits the scope of Christian churches in the US: five minute search session suggests that there are less than 2000 megachurches in the US and somewhere around 380000 churches overall.
That is not a very useful statistic. Since megachurches by definition have much larger congregations than regular ones, you should be comparing total attendance not number of churches.
I believe you. I just think comparing church counts sounded like a way to downplay their significance as a potential source of spread.
The other factor is that larger congregations means more opportunity for wider spread from a single infected individual, so again greater potential impact than the apparent count would imply.
Well, sure. Most churches in the country are, y'know, run by people who are trying to get by. But much like how profiteer companies should be called on the carpet, so should very-much-for-profit religious institutions that can't be assed to care about the well-being of their flock.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Megachurch founders like Joel Osteen didn't get to the position they're in by being naive followers of christ solely with a passionate message, they're businessmen.
> The virus, we believe, is politically motivated.
Good God. The times we live in.
Like, what does this sentence even mean? He probably doesn't even know himself. The vague couplings we make between our political identity and just, random subjects, have transcended the subconscious and become an acceptable thing to just... profess. As-is.
This behaviour is not particularly new really. For example, there are all sorts of people who believe the Iraq war was started based on less than entirely truthful pretenses.
Some people have very active imaginations, but that's just one of the things that makes life so interesting!
I mean, there’s a difference between “gulf war 2.0 was dodgy” (which is fairly well documented at this point) and claiming that a pandemic is ‘politically motivated’. What does the latter even mean? That the virus is itself fraudulent? That the virus is an artificial creation? That the virus is sentient and spends a lot of time on twitter? I can’t think of any reasonable interpretation of that.
So, there were WMDs? We're not talking about ancient history here. Lots of us can remember the lies that got us into Iraq II as well as those that got us into Iraq I.
Hebrews 10:24-25 would indicate that the people should meet together. Depending on how literally their church interprets this, it could mean they don't consider things like virtual meetings enough.
If it doesn't specifically prohibit "virtual meetings", because they couldn't imagine the technology, then it seems to me it doesn't literally forbid them.
I [virtually] never understand how other people use "literal"...
Historically the early church was persecuted, making meetings very difficult. There are plenty of biblical examples of extenuating circumstances. A theme in the bible is that a heart of obedience matters more than the act of obedience.
This headline is technically right, which is the best kind.
More seriously, the article could find 3 megachurches that are still open. Pretty much all churches are shut down, except ones that are live streaming services. For something so unenforceable to be so widely adopted "Not many megachurches packing in crowds" seems like a more appropriate headline.
The headline says "megachurches," but the article says "More than 550 parishioners attended, about half as many as the week before, pastor Tony Spell told a local news reporter."
1100 parishioners is megachurch now? Last I heard you needed at least 2k / week to qualify [0]
If there were 1100 last week, when everyone sensible was already self-isolating where feasible, then presumably normal attendance is much higher than that.
> Spell told BRPROUD that he believes covid-19 can be cured through “the healing hand of Jesus.” When asked what would happen should one of his parishioners test positive for the coronavirus, Spell referred to a passage from the Bible. “If that is our command, they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.”
Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. We need to start handing out fines to those who willfully put other lives in danger. I recall reading that in the Spanish Flu pandemic, police in San Francisco fined those in public not wearing masks. Enjoy your freedoms, just not at my peril.
“It’s not a concern,” he said. “The virus, we believe, is politically motivated. We hold our religious rights dear and we are going to assemble no matter what someone says.”
“I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance inflict and pollute others and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above. See this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.”
Martin Luther, 1527 after a plague wrecked his hometown of Wittenberg
Can you quote whatever you're talking about? I've searched the letter using keywords "demonic", "demon", and "infect" and can't figure out what you're talking about.
He is describing hypothetical people who purposely infecting others with a deadly disease and then laughing about it. This was the bubonic plague. He is not calling for vigilante justice, but rather for government action leading to capital punishment by the authorities. I thought you were referring to some kind of vigilante justice the way Duterte in the Philippines called for people to pick up guns and kill suspected drug dealers with their own hands.
I'm not for capital punishment. But calling for capital punishment enacted by the authorities leads to a debate about whether capital punishment is good or bad, and I wouldn't call into question someone's character just because they support eye-for-an-eye capital punishment. If they were supporting eye-for-an-eye vigilante justice, I'd be very scared.
But capital punishment is a debate that happens every day, and I don't say that anyone who supports it is a deplorable person. I do try to convince them why I think capital punishment is a bad idea, but that's different from calling into question their character.
He's not talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He's talking about a vague concept that seems to overlap with the witches that were burned over several centuries. He's talking about "people" who may be devils and not human. And saying they need to be hanged by an official in no way implies that is the only acceptable way of dealing with them.
I don't mean to suggest he's other than a product of his time. He couldn't know that fleas spread the plague. So ignorance of what was going on would have had terrible consequences in trying to assign blame.
But people do try to shoehorn sages from centuries ago into a modern sensibility.
I'm not sure. He seems to add a lot of caveats that indicate he doesn't necessarily believe the stories to be real (emphasis mine):
"I do not know whether I should believe this; if it is true, I do not know whether we Germans are not really devils instead of human beings. It must be admitted that there are some extremely coarse and wicked people. The devil is never idle. My advice is that if any such persons are discovered"
I think he did know that the plague was spread by something physical. He talks about fumigation. And he's not wrong to say that social distancing is preferred. He doesn't seem to be any different from people condemning spring breakers in Florida who have outright stated that they don't care if they get the virus.
His reaction is more extreme, but he was saying that if such people are blatantly infecting others with a known deadly disease and laughing about it, they should correspondingly be punished with death. He is not suggesting that he himself or anyone individual should execute them. He is suggesting that they should be punished by the authorities by death. Calling them devils, if I read in the context of the whole thing, he seems to be using hyperbole, not sincerely believing them to be supernatural beings, but rather, just something evil the way that some people may call serial killers or morbid gang members devils. He does say that such people could be influenced by "the devil", a supernatural being, but that's not a huge surprise, given his beliefs, and it's certainly not something he dwells on. If he truly believed them to be devils instead of using hyperbole, I'm sure that his recommended remedy would be something along the lines of prayer and exorcism for them, not hanging. Rather, he focuses on the behaviour and the corresponding punishment, not the supernatural. If he focused his letter more on the supernatural than he does, I'd be inclined to agree with your conclusions.
Like I've read some American preachers apparently talk about COVID-19 in a very religious vein, much more than what I see in this letter. Those people really focus on the religious stuff, not the physical behaviour. I don't see that in Luther's letter. Given what I've read here, I think he is focused more on social realities and talking about hypothetical criminals and capital punishment in a modern sense. He does use religious language and logic to explain his points, but I can excuse him for that, given his background and occupation. We need to be able to understand whether our interpretation matches what someone is intending to say, it's very easy for our interpretations to be wrong, especially if one is using hyperbole. Yes, I could be wrong too, of course.
You could defend him in just the same manner if he was talking about witches casting spells on people or Jews poisoning wells. I mean, if there really were people who did that stuff, it would be bad. And quite possibly he would be cautious and skeptical within his worldview about accusations and contemporary due process. Doesn't make him a modern person and I'd hope you would not defend a modern person who acted similarly.
I don't consider myself a Christian, but this is exactly what I consider appropriate in a situation like this.
The language of "tempting God" is weird though. I mean, I know it's a phrase used all the time, but it's still just weird because it makes me stop and say just what sort of personality does God have anyway?
I heard a rumor that when the Bible uses the word, it wasn't actually English, modern or archaic, in the original.
Looks like it might be πειράζω.
Edit: and Luther apparently used the word Versuchung, which I'm not sure how to interpret because everybody seems to translate it as temptation in the sense of seduction, even though the biblical word should be testing or proving...
Yeah Biblical etymology and comparison with original languages is its own rabbit hole. See definition of word day in Genesis chapter 1 and how many conservative American churches don't do a very deep dive.
the point is not to assert anything about God as much as it is to make clear that God is not to be used as a shield. One does not have superpowers or fewer responsibilities because God is on one's side. Tempting God by being boastful or reckless is simply a form of hubris.
Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, If You are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here. For it is written:
He shall give his angels charge over you, To keep you, and, In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.
And Jesus answered and said to him, It has been said, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.
Anyone who assembles no matter what legal authorities have said should recognize that they will subsequently have no need of a legal or moral right to seek admission to a hospital not owned by their church. Otherwise, they must leave their survival in the hands of God, without the opportunity to take anyone down with them.
Wow, this is like a drug dealer lacing their services with fentanyl. In all seriousness I'm making the comparison because in both cases the sanctity of life is being violated in favour of arrogant self-interests.
I think they should still open for people that have the virus and need prayer or counseling or to support anyone that lost their job,etc... (With distancing and other precautions). But even if you believe you can't get the virus, unbelievers are supposed to be very welcome in Churches so it is reckless to endanger them. I guarantee you most Churches that are lead by people that actually believe in their proclaimed faith agree with what I said (or they are stricter). Even Joel Osteen isn't holding in person services last I heard.
A church in the town of Central Lo, had 550 people at mass. Lebanon Ohio has a church with 3500 members (no numbers on how many showed up).
These aren't really mega churches. Based on the information provided they are not saying thousands of people are showing up. The headline is false. What it should say is three small to medium sized churches don't believe they should stop live mass.
If they want to go be with their god, who am I to deny them? They're gonna see him sooner than they thought if they keep at it. I'll just do my best to stay far away from them.
The problem is that these people are going to be taking up precious space in your hospital's ER and ICU units.
Remember, younger people aren't as affected by this as older people. So these dumb churchgoers (who I believe tend to be younger, if these are megachurches) will be catching it, then spreading it to their older relatives, who will then be flooding the hospitals.
A big part of this, I can speak for my church, is that we believe in a God, and thus God has control over plagues and disease. Therefore, it is logical to believe that we should offer more sacrifice and honor to God in these difficult times instead of less, in the hope that the long-term effects of the disease be reduced should it be God's will.
We still take natural precautions, such as maintaining social distancing, as we believe that it is not ours to tempt God. As it says in the Bible story, Satan tempted the Lord to throw himself off of a building because scripture said the angels would catch him. Christ responded that it was also written in scripture that you should not tempt God. This week, to take natural precautions without denying the sacredness of the Mass, we actually filled the parking lot and celebrated Holy Mass with everyone watching from their vehicles. This way, viewers could participate in the Latin Mass with minimal risk of exposure.
We obviously do not enjoy this method of worship. But, when it comes to ensuring the safety of the people while still trying to give honor and sacrifice, it's a compromise that's better than nothing.
It's kind of like Lord of The Rings, a little bit. Frodo was called to do everything possible until the very end of the journey, whereupon Eru Illuvitar, the creator of Middle-Earth, intervened to cause Gollum to slip at the last moment. God expects us to give our all, and intervenes only when we've done everything we could have done. This is to allow those who fought against evil to attain glory, and those who fought for evil to attain humiliation.
Which is more humiliating for evil? Being instantly defeated by an omnipresent, all-powerful God, or having been resisted and fought against by comparatively weak human beings who gave their all in resistance?
I get the logic, but what pisses me off is that fact that those thousands of people who are packing churches and have similar beliefs as you will be lining up outside the ER and crowding hospitals as soon as they get sick.
I don't agree with everything you say, but I do think it's noteworthy to express your opinion in a way thats non accusational and explanatory from an external perspective.
You don't have the right to expose other people you interact with in life just because of your fatalistic belief system. If you and your group are completely quarantined that's one thing, but otherwise this is unconscionably irresponsible.
Isn't there a saying "God only helps those who help themselves". Surely the logical way to interoperate this is that you should stay at home, not get infected and pray from home.
Not necessarily. By "God only helps those who help themselves," we are called to take reasonable precautions, and to pray for those afflicted as much as possible within our state in life.
Furthermore, the Holy Mass is the most powerful prayer that can be offered to God. We have celibate priests who chose to volunteer their lives and give up the goods of marriage just for the ability to say this prayer. We certainly do not abandon this prayer when we need it most.
Possibly, but we do believe that God's priesthood is a divine institution, thus God will select members for it. Those selected will begin to have a natural inclination towards the priesthood, though because of the gift of free will, they have the choice whether to accept or deny the calling.
What free will? There’s only one timeline, only one past, only one future. The only difference between the past and the future is we think we can see the past.
The universe is clearly deterministic. Our brains just do an astonishingly good job of making us think we’re the authors of our own decisions; were it not for that powerful illusion we’d immediately recognise free will as the absurdity which it is.
It's asking them to self-select based on how much the priesthood appeals to them. Not all Christian denominations may agree that pastors must be celibate, but we all agree that leading a church isn't something you do from 9 to 5 while maintaining a normal life on the side.
As someone that's not religious, I never understood prayer. I mean if God already has a plan for everything and everyone, wouldn't the prayer already been taken into consideration so that it shouldn't effect the outcome at all?
Think of "God's plan" as being like a computer program. Even if the "code" doesn't change, it can still yield different outcomes based on run-time inputs. Whether we pray, whether we repent, whether we even believe, etc. are such inputs. Free will says we can choose to do these things are not, but it doesn't mean there won't be divine response. At the very least, this is usually construed as affecting whether we go to heaven or hell. Depending on how far you take it, it can lead all the way to the "prosperity gospel" idea that shows of devotion can be directly tied to immediate and material reward.
Prayer is the button that you push. It might have no effect, and whether it does or not might be preordained, but you still have to push it to find out.
I would recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church from section 2558 onward. It's free online and you might be surprised at how understandable, clear, and honest of a definition of prayer it is.
Thanks for the additional resource, but I don't find it understandable at all. I mean I understand the words, but together I have no idea how to interpret them.
For example, "Only when we humbly acknowledge that "we do not know how to pray as we ought," are we ready to receive freely the gift of prayer." What does that mean? It seems to be saying that prayer is communion with God, but also that "Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God."
Sure, Sophocles said that, along with other ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights. I think that no matter one's beliefs, pretty much everyone would agree that a person who takes risks (especially with other people's lives) while thinking someone or something else will bail them out is being prideful, which is a bad thing.
In this case, wouldn't doing everything you could be stay at home and not help spread the virus? I mean, what would make God happier, no one dies and no one goes to church for a while, or everyone goes to church and some people die because of it?
It's supposedly not a vending machine, from my understanding. It is a realization that you are limited either way in the grand scheme and a belief in a promise and meaning.
Actually, surprise, that some people went to church and possibly died (even though we do quite extreme measures to prevent death - going to a grocery store, in our situation, is far riskier than offering mass with everyone confined to their vehicles).
You have to understand two things: The first is that the Mass is the greatest prayer that humans can offer to God, and that your potential death offering it is valuable as long as you were not tempting God in the process (which is why we aren't careless in the face of a virus). It is important to emphasize that we do NOT _seek out_ death, but rather, if we should die, that is rewarded.
The second thing is, what is there to fear about death? To quote the Eastertide Proclamation: "Where, Oh Death, is your sting?" If you believe in God and have served him with your life, what do you have to fear? This life is described as a "valley of tears," while "eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has in store for those who love him."
@yibg Absolutely, life is a gift. We don't _fear_ death, but we don't go seeking it out either, and we certainly do everything we can to reasonably avoid it. This is because God put us here for a purpose, to know, love, and serve him (as defined in a whole different argument), and our job is to serve our current purpose and task in life as much as possible until God decides that your time has ended.
So circling back to the current situation. Isn't the best way to "do everything we can to reasonably avoid it" to stay home and not be around other people?
The second point seems very selectively applied. If we take this stance, that death is but the beginning of something greater, then why do anything to prevent death at all? I mean, why wear seatbelts, why exercise etc. Isn't living a long and fulfilling life important in religious circles too?
I just thought of a joke, "Only Catholic churches should be considered 'essential services' during the quarantine, since Protestants don't need it to know God."
I thank you for your comment, that you seem to be sincere in expressing your beliefs. I cannot help but express my absolute astonishment that this level of "proving your love by risking your life" exists in educated society.
I also have never heard of Church described in terms of "honor and sacrifice" in a positive manner. I have never known that church was seen as so mandatory by a Christian faith that you should risk your life to go, excepting human oppression.
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."
And, to be honest, most of us will give our lives for _something_ even if it isn't God. Whether it be pleasure, success, money, drugs, we all chose something to give our lives for.
Catholic priest salary is not high: About $45K according to https://work.chron.com/much-catholic-priests-paid-12915.html. Certainly not McMansion territory, which is why you may notice the comparative lack of wealthy Catholic priests compared to Protestant denominations.
There's an old joke that goes something like this:
A priest was caught in a flood. Standing on the lawn outside his house, ankle-deep in water, he spoke to a group of men in a rubber life raft:
"I'm staying here. God will protect me."
Later, standing on the second floor of his house, he spoke again to a group of men in a search-and-rescue boat:
"I'm staying here. God will provide!"
Finally, the waters rose until they reached the roof of his house, and shouting to a Coast Guard rescue vessel, he insisted:
"I'M STAYING HERE! GOD WILL PROTECT ME!"
Some time later, the priest was waiting impatiently outside of the pearly gates, and when St. Peter allowed him through, he marched right up to God and demanded an explanation.
"I have been faithful all my life. I have served you in all your glory, O Lord, and you promised to keep me safe from harm. Why did you let me die?"
And the Lord spake thus: "You idiot, I sent you three ships!"
God does not expect you to give all unto Him. God expects you to take care of yourself. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made to serve Man; there's no point in following practices that harm us. I firmly believe that this is a lesson many churches willfully ignore, which makes me sad, because it's really kind of the point of Jesus's whole journey.
Frankly, mega-churches are a perversion of Jesus's message to begin with, and I suspect their staff would be on the receiving end of a thorough whipping if Jesus were to enter one today. But given that the Second Coming hasn't happened yet, I humbly suggest that you learn from the priest caught in the flood, and recognize that God does not want to be a helicopter parent.
Like I said about not tempting God. By refusing to take the three ships, this is a perfect example about a priest who was, even if unintentionally, tempting God by expecting a dramatic divine intervention.
God does expect us to give all unto him. However, this does mean different status depending upon your state in life. If you are married, that doesn't mean enter a chapel 24/7. That would not please God. Instead, you please God by doing everything to be a virtuous husband/wife and by raising your children in a holy manner, and by doing your best to observe God's commandments.
And, finally, I agree with you that protestant mega-churches are a perversion of Jesus's message due to both doctrinal errors and attachment to money, and I fear that they will one day be like parable of the 10 virgins in the Bible:
"Later, the other virgins arrived and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I do not know you.’"
God did not make hell for men, but for the demons. The demons were much more intelligent than you or me, so their decision on whether to be good or evil was instantaneous.
We, however, are significantly lower in intelligence than demons for a variety of reasons too complex for here. Because of that, most of humanity has a 40-70 year lifespan over which to decide whether to serve good or evil for eternity. After that, you really get what you freely chose with your life. If you chose evil, you really chose to be with Satan forever, and God honors your choice and free will. If you chose good, God honors that choice as well.
That's a simple way to say it, but there is far more that can be said on this topic. Furthermore, we believe God is infinitely just, and therefore, if a person is judged worthy of Hell, that person will have absolutely _zero_ ability to argue with God's judgement and will _completely_ understand the justice of God's judgement - although, this does not mean that the person will not hate the effects of the judgement with every ounce of his body. It's kind of like if you kill a person. You understand that the murder was completely your fault and your sentence is fair, and yet you hate your sentence.
To me that all sounds like amateur fantasy fiction writing. The thing that made me is now judging me? I don’t understand how such cheap parlour trick logic appeals to anyone.
If I write a complex computer program and it doesn’t do what I wanted, I don’t blame the program for failing. Even if I gave the program machine learning or artificial general intelligence. Even if I defined computer processes as having souls.
>If you chose evil, you really chose to be with Satan forever, and God honors your choice and free will. If you chose good, God honors that choice as well.
That's not consistent with Christian teaching (or, as I understand it, much Judaic teaching that doesn't even have a Hell.)
It doesn't matter if you choose good or evil. According to Christian doctrine, all humans by default (even, according to some verses, infants in the womb) are destined to burn in Hell unless they've been saved through grace by Jesus. It's innate to the nature of humanity due to original sin, and that sin originates from free will itself, which humans were never meant to have, according to Genesis. It's the result of eating the forbidden fruit and "becoming like God, knowing both good and evil."
The person who spends their entire life being morally upright and law abiding, doing good, and helping others? If they're not saved, they burn, too bad.
Hitler earnestly prays for salvation before shooting himself in the head in his bunker? Gets an eternity of bliss in paradise. The millions of Jews he murdered? Not so much.
That's how it's supposed to work. Like, unless you know the bouncer and the secret handshake, you just don't get into the club.
Hell is simply this: Your own free-will rejection of the Godhead, who is all good, all love, and all truth itself. We are used to the end of romantic relationships hurting. If you end the relationship with transcendental love, goodness, and truth itself, it is not going to feel very good. He is a gentleman though and will let you do what you want.
I feel like your post is intended to be sarcasm, but it’s hard to tell because most sincere people don’t tend to say things that are particularly comprehensible.
> Which is more humiliating for evil? Being instantly defeated by an omnipresent, all-powerful God, or having been resisted and fought against by comparatively weak human beings who gave their all in resistance?
That's not the whole set of choices. There is also the 'painful defeat by a small virus for which there is at present no cure' and 'spreading that virus around to others who do not share your particular beliefs'.
God - assuming one exists - isn't moving that virus around, but you are.
Which is why we take reasonable (and even somewhat unreasonable) precautions, such as offering the mass with all people inside their vehicles, even though less than a dozen people have died in our state AFAIK. Going to a grocery store is certainly riskier in our area.
Nobody gasses up on their way to the church? Nobody going for tea and biscuits afterwards? Just straight to church and back home? Everybody? You sure about that?
If less than a dozen people in your state died, at 1% mortality that's at least 1200 people infected, plus the 5-6 days incubation time.
Time will tell. I hope for what it's worth that none of you picked it up or passed it around. Best of luck with that.
Here in NL where I live the progression was something like 'extremely small chance it will come here' to 'overloaded ICU's' in the span of 3.5 weeks.
I must say I find it odd that in another thread I'm arguing with someone who wants me to come up with some kind of plan to keep ICU's running in the face of imminent disaster and you go out on your outing because of your imaginary friend.
Both of you are out of touch with reality in different ways in my opinion, and in both cases you're going to end up sorely disappointed long before this is all over.
If you keep this up you are going to endanger yourself and the people you love. The risk will go up until you win the lottery ticket, and then, likely you will end up occupying some of that scarce ICU capacity, effectively killing someone else.
What does it matter? What a toyish impression of human life, with such a focus on humiliation and glory and great narrative. How glorious is it to be concerned with glory and humiliation?
Who will be listening around for these stories? What will we be doing?
Everyone, when the Resurrection of the Dead happens. We believe in two judgements: A personal judgement, which happens the moment you die and covers only the events that happened during your life, and then a last judgement in which every action by every human is revealed and the story made clear.
Can you account for the value of human life in the atheistic worldview? Bags of chemicals, here by pure, unintended happenstance, is hardly a high view of humanity.
Who will be around listening to these stories once the universe cools?
Aren't bags of chemicals also the part of the Christian perspective on physics? The fact that both Christians and Muslims can observe bags of chemicals does not restrict them to how they choose to think about people, or what values they choose promote.
What glory is there in the concern for glory, and moreover, the humiliation of evil people? Isn't there a smell to having a taste for the humiliation of evil?
There doesn’t need to be in-built value in human life for it to be valuable. As a species and society, we have chosen to value life and put rules in place to protect it. I find it inspiring that our species decided that, not a deity.
For what it’s worth, there is not one atheistic worldview; the lack of belief in a god is not an ideology. It is nonsensical just like asking about the shared worldview of everyone who lacks belief in leprechauns or Zeus.
>Some megachurches have opted out of in-person services and turned to live streaming entirely.
Correction: Just about every church that I've heard about has gone online. Certainly possible that less-affected states are a week or two behind the curve, but most understand the weight of this and are acting accordingly.