Covid19, the Church and Lockdown THREAD

I am genuinely torn. Sacraments are not an 'optional extra' in the smorgasbord of worship. The Eucharist is the 'source and summit' of the life of the church. As de Lubac puts it: "The Eucharist makes the Church" 1/

There can be no doubt that whilst can properly, validly and licitly be celebrated by a priest alone, for good reason: the fullness of the sacramental celebration is 'realised' when celebrated with a gathered community present and participating. 2/

As Gregory Dix puts it "week by week and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of Christendom, the pastors have done this just to make the plebs sancta Dei—the holy common people of God." 3/

That is recognised by both the reaction of the Archbishops of the @churchofengland and of @catholicEW in their most recent letters responding to the provisional advice for the new 'lockdown' for England which begins this Thursday. It is good to see this challenge being made. 4/

Where I am torn though, is that there can be no doubt that where we find ourselves now, is with a pandemic where numbers of positive cases, hospitalisations, use of ICU and ventilation and sadly, deaths, are increasing significantly. 5/

This isn't flu: it is a contagious pathogen with a much higher fatality rate than flu (av. yearly flu deaths 11,000 in the UK). It is a novel virus, whose long-term effects on health are not fully understood. Vaccine efficacy is not yet know - nor are they yet available. 6/

The rise in infections is clear. It is not an 'artefact' of more testing, since it is proportional. It is not generated by 'false-positives' (or 'false-negatives'). And axiomatically, it is *not* the product of any wild conspiracy theories, which have zero credence. 7/

The only way this spreads is through contact. Where people meet, mix, mingle (!) potential infection is possible. As the number of people, the time they spend together, their proximiity increases, and the lack of ventilation decreases, so chance of infection rises. 8/

It might be worth reminding ourselves that every shop, every business, every school, every institution, every pub, every restaurant, every cinema, every hairdresser, every form of transport... and every church (and church hall) *is* now 'Covid Safe' in order to be open. 9/

In a perfect world, where *everything* shuts, every border closes and no-one goes anywhere (for several weeks), the infection rate would eventually fall precipitously. But if *some* places are allowed to remain open, then as we know, "R" doesn't decline as quickly. 10/

In a perfect world, with perfect precautions, and a perfect test-trace-isolate system and a perfect level of compliance that 'opening up' would of course be far easier. The difficulty is that we don't live in a perfect world, and at present we have far from perfect systems. 11/

[Arguments about the economic and health priorities are, fwiw I think, mis-played as either/or. Pandemics show us how utterly integrated economics and health are: isn't it axiomatic that a sick workforce is unproductive, and a sick "consumeracy" is not one which will spend. ] 12/

So why am I torn? Because in the mode we're attempting to use to 'live with' this, we enter a bargaining mode of 'my covid secure is better than yours'; 'my business is more important than yours'; my church/life/club/sport etc is more important than yours... 13/

If everyone then pleads an 'exception' then no-one would end up with any restriction. That is, for some, a reasonable argument. It is though, absolutely clearly, one which comes with a very significant death toll: the modelling has been prescient on this. 14/

And arguing 'show me the data' is a difficult argument to prosecute when the data is a)emergent, b)lacks granularity, c) needs contextualisation and d) is often observational and partial. It is also subject to rapid change. 15/

If a large church, for example, had an asymptomatic 'superspreader' event today, the data (and argument) would change quickly. If you think that's not possible, ask one of the 'covid safe' food processing plants where such events have broken out. 16/

I am now guilty of the possibility of 'false equivalence' - for churches are not food processing plants - but neither are they supermarkets, pubs, play centers, shops, planes or any other place they often get compared to (Why can I go to X and not to Y) they're all different. 17/

There are indeed merits to churches being open for public worship. But there are merits to them not. For anyone to pretend that there are easy theological, epedemiological or medical answers than this is as much a form of confirmation bias as it is anything else. 18/

SIGNIFICANT limits on space, proximity, *numbers*, activity, and the absolute use of *all* available precautionary methods (masks, sanitisers etc) REDUCE but do not eliminate infection risk. Competitive Covid-security might simply be a false, but attractive argument. 19/

For 'where two or three are gathered' isn't just about the consideration of the presence of Jesus. Sacraments give life, but are not infection and disease prophylaxis. Where two or three are gathered now requires us to take infection seriously: even if, at times, that's hard. 20/

To keep churches open, or to close them for a season is an incredibly nuanced argument: one which often generates far more heat than light. (and 'just leave it to me' isn't the answer). It may be we need to live with 'both / and' with all the tension that comes with that. 21/

And for those who've made it this far: this isn't 'the answer' because I don't think there *is* a right or wrong answer. In saying so, perhaps the biggest surprise to some, is just how 'Church of England' I can be.... ENDS

Happy All Souls Day!