We all know that a horrible pandemic is ravaging our world, threatening everyone's lives, and wreaking havoc all around. "We're all going to die!" one fellow complained to me. Well, yes, he's technically accurate, just not from COVID. We've seen (obviously) health trauma and economic trauma and emotional trauma. Of real concern is the decline of church attendance. From being locked out to thinking that a switch to "virtual church" is suitable, a lot of people that used to go to church may not anymore.
So is it all bad news? I don't think so. While the tail end of 2020 and the start of 2021 saw a run up in numbers worldwide, we've seen a decline in both new cases and deaths lately. The horror stories of how "everyone is getting it" aren't actually accurate. Incidence rates are around 10%, up from the earlier 2% but not approaching the 50% of the Spanish flu pandemic. And of those who do get it, fatality rates are still generally less than 2%. It's not all horrible. Still, I would argue a little bit further. I'd argue that there have actually been some benefits from this malignant virus.
Environmental
It's odd to consider the positive effects a deadly worldwide pandemic has had on what we have considered for a few years now our greatest threat -- environmental issues. "Global climate change" is the faceless enemy to many and, arriving to save the day, as it were, COVID-19 rides in with solutions. We've stopped traveling as much, stopped moving as much, stopped doing as much, and we've seen a 25% decrease in carbon emissions and a 50% decrease in notrogen oxides emissions. One scientist has estimated this has saved 77,000 lives over two months. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. There have been reports of wildlife spotted in cities. One think tank believes that the pandemic may have pushed the fossil fuel industry into "terminal decline" with the decrease in demand for such products while, on the other hand, bike sales surged. Adobe reported a 50% increase in PDF documents, deccreasing the use of paper. There are more than a few effects on our environment that aren't all bad.
Family Relations
I know more than a few elderly people who were once alone -- tucked away in retirement homes or on their own in their own homes -- who are not anymore. I know more than a few whose adult children have moved them into their homes or have moved in with their aging parents to take care of them. In a culture that values "me time" over "you time," this is remarkable. In a society that intentionally aimed to put to death the "nuclear family" -- the "multigenerational home" -- I think this is a positive.
Beyond this, because of COVID fears and quarantines and enforced isolation, families that were once "scattered abroad" doing their own thing have been forced to share the same limited space, being forced in turn to get used to it and maybe even like it. When choices are limited, it turns out the intolerable may not be as bad as we thought.
Changed Values
I've been fascinated at some of the conversations and interviews I've seen. Traditionally, kids loved summer vacation and hated going back to school. Once established as a tradition, it reinforced itself into "You must hate school if you're going to be cool." Now these interviews and conversations are saying something different. Kids want to go back to school. They miss their friends and their teachers. They see value to learning. It has been fun to watch.
That is one example of the shift in values that we're seeing. When we were unhindered, we were scattered in our values. Fun was highest on most lists; not as much now. Life has become more important when so many have lost it. Freedom was our mainstay before, but now we're willing to give up freedoms for a new, higher value -- safety. Independence was important, but now we're learning that dependence is also something worth embracing.
There are still people with the same values. "Me" is still prevalent. And, yet, I've also seen some people who have shifted some on that point. I know people who, personally opposed to wearing masks, for instance, still do so because it benefits others who are not opposed. People who are very uncomfortable in those strangulation devices still don them if it makes someone who is scared feel safer. That's a shift in values. A good one.
Then there are those church people. While it is true that many won't be back, it's also true that another group of church-goers have developed a new love for going to church. Originally locked out, now, like those school kids who suddenly find they really need to be there, some have discovered that being connected in close proximity to God's people is much more vital than they realized before. They took it for granted when it was readily available, but now it has become critical.
Life
It has been touching to see a change in the sense of the fragility of life. For most of us death is mostly remote. It happens to someone else or to someone else's loved ones. Sure, that's not accurate, but it's the feeling many have. When you add half a million American deaths to the mix where seemingly healthy people are suddenly dead and gone, it has an effect. When a mother or a father or a spouse who was "too young to die" is suddenly gone like that -- specifically in large numbers like that -- it changes your perspective. Life becomes more personal and more valuable. We mourn the dead and embrace the living more. That's not a bad thing.
Theology
There is one other effect. Crises like these act as a winnowing. They serve to crystallize our theology. What do I really believe about God? They remove the chaff from the wheat. They shake loose the false from the true, the imposter from the authentic. While we can cruise along okay without crisis, these kinds of things either crowd us closer than ever to the Sovereign Lord or clearly display that no such relationship existed before. In some of the latter, it is a wake up call to get that remedied for themselves. In others, it serves as notification to those believers around them that someone we thought was a fellow believer is not, so we can now get to work on evangelizing the "saved."
A pandemic is not pleasant and not fun. It's not something we like. But I have it on good authority that "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28) While we face suffering and hardships, His good plan continues. It is another illustration that what God's enemies intend for evil He intends for good (Gen 50:20). If we can just settle on that and get ourselves firmly rooted in that, I think we'll find that these kinds of things can be a source of supernatural joy, knowing that "the testing of your faith produces steadfastness," and steadfastness perfects and completes us (James 1:3-4).
27 comments:
While I'm totally down with the concept of being tested...when am I not?...there's much about this mostly uplifting post which I find troubling.
Environmental
This isn't the benefit portrayed if the trade off is not working and providing for one's family. Thankfully, both my wife and I were in "essential" lines of work and as such have been driving to work every day, as well as to other places life requires us to go.
Otherwise, we haven't "stopped" traveling so much as we've been denied places to go. For the longest time, stores, restaurants and other businesses were denied us to one extent or another, making travel a rather moot point. Family members isolated from family not part of the immediate household, as did friends and associates. For far too many, this added stress to those who had to hole up because there was no place one was allowed to go. The virus spread more easily in these conditions.
Family Relations
As I alluded above, relations were often strained as a result of false and misleading government guidelines and "advice". How many lost their elderly parents without any ability to spend their remaining hours in their company? My wife was denied access to her mother just because her mother lives in a retirement situation and they wouldn't allow outsiders access. Her mother does NOT want to live with anyone. The wife was also denied access to her grandchildren as her daughters feared what wasn't at all likely. One daughter broke down and now hopes we take her two girls as often as possible, but the other still has strict rules regarding her daughters coming in contact with anyone outside the home. I believe there have been far more in similar situations than there are those who moved together.
Fortunately for us, we have a good number of friends who didn't buy into the "Andromeda Strain" narratives and we were soon able to meet with them as our schedules allowed.
Changed Values
A mixed bag. Our second oldest has fraternal twin daughters. One has been pining for school while the other is perfectly content being home. Both are seven years old. Our oldest's daughters are another story. Her oldest, soon to be ten, has Down Syndrome. She really needs her special needs teachers and counselors and her contact with them was not as limited at all. The other girl, who's five, needs the structure of a classroom, and needs to be monitored closely, but at her age, school hasn't become the norm for her anyway. I think all in all, none of the four have any strong aversion to school, and their main concern isn't learning as much as being around their friends again...though they do like learning.
I disagree that "fun" has lost it's high ranking. It's just that we can't have any. Unnecessary restrictions have seen to that.
And it's not just the dead who have lost their lives. The living have as well and we're not happy about it. Again, it's all so unnecessary. Most of us understand the initial month or so before we got a handle on what this virus is all about. But common sense was stifled and reason was ignored and even prohibited in favor of the power over us that drove too many governors and "experts".
It's a shame you have given up your freedom for a little safety. But here's the thing: that choice was always a part of your freedom. In the meantime, few others actually agreed to this exchange. And I gotta tell ya...even in the earliest days I felt incredibly stupid abiding the "rules". They just didn't feel right to me. Then I felt betrayed. The objection to hydroxychloroquine sealed that deal for me. If they weren't willing to allow the use of a harmless drug on the chance it might have benefit, it seemed clear we weren't getting an honest response from on high. Talk about changed values! And now my independence is infringed upon by those who don't have any Constitutional authority to get in the way.
We've had this mask discussion before. Wear 'em if you want to, leave the rest of us alone. To you, this "me" thing only goes one way and it's subjective. More people are harangued and shamed into compliance than there are those who do so out of respect for the fearful, most of whom don't leave their homes, the rest of whom might want to order it instead of imposing on the rest of society. But we're to acquiesce to their "me". How about a compromise? Don't wear those one-way masks if you think masks are the answer. But common sense tells us that if masks are worth a darn, then I don't need to wear one if you're wearing one. We're both protected. Of course, I'm not sick, so I'm no threat anyway. If you're sick, what are you doing out in public?
I don the mask when no choice is given me. They don't work. I'm not up for lying to people, even if I choose to act according to irrational fears of others. That's what acquiescing is. Lying. Wear the mask for the comfort of others, but don't let them believe you abide the lie or you're lying as well. Try this: "I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that wearing this mask is pointless and does no good, and I can prove it with mounds of studies. But if it makes you feel more comfortable, I'll wear one for the brief time I'll remain in your presence."
I miss going to church.
Life
All I have to say on this is that the total American death toll for 2020 was not significantly different than previous years. I would say the minimal rise was not from Covid directly as it was from all the deaths which were a consequence of bad governmental response to it...suicides, murders, accidental substance overdose, etc.
Theology
I would say any extreme circumstance has the same results described herein. 9/11, natural disasters, wars, crime...
All remains in God's hands.
I think you misunderstood my post and my point. It wasn't, "Don't worry; it's all good." My point was more at "Every cloud has a silver lining." My point was more accurately that God can use anything for His glory.
"It's a shame you have given up your freedom for a little safety."
I've never worn a mask for safety. Conversely, I've never considered "freedom" (the type typically described by the anti-maskers) as something to hold onto. I don't wear a mask for myself; I do it out of consideration for those who are uncomfortable because my discomfort is not as important to me as their comfort, especially on a matter so trivial as donning a mask. I neither believe that it is my calling to drag people out of their fears by terrifying them nor essential that a mask must be 100% perfect in order to be "effective."
I get that you see it differently. Hey, I get that almost everyone sees it differently. I just don't consider my own preferences and comfort #1 on my list of priorities all the time.
What about the lying part, Stan? While acting in a manner that alleviates the fears of another is laudable, to allow them to continue believing they have something to fear is as much lying to them as is being the person who made up the lie.
Another angle is that I constantly hear this suggestion that we must consider others with regard to this mandate. But what of those others? Are they somehow relieved of that consideration? Do you spend any time suggesting to them that they think of the discomfort of those who object to wearing masks? I try not to make much of it, but as one with emphysema (not a bad case), breathing freely is important to me. The effect of exertion is compounded by having my face covered impeding my ability to breathe freely. I can only imagine what it must be like for those with a more severe case than mine.
My position is more of "wear 'em if you got 'em", not "wear 'em because". While I find some people simply foolish as to their choice of wearing them, my overall attitude is I'm willing to allow others to do as they wish. To expect that I be allowed to do so without some sanctimonious proclamation to consider the irrational fears of those around me seems a bit much. I keep my distance. By your Mayo study, that should be sufficient for anyone.
Just a quick question, Art. Have you come across someone who was scared and wore a mask to protect themselves and you've been able, by not wearing a mask, to end their fear?
(By the way, I have a relative that has been terrified of the pandemic since its inception. In December, he spent a day with another relative, helping him out with some project. He wore his mask all day. The next day, the other relative tested positive for COVID. The first one did not. The other relative died in January of his COVID. The first never got it at all. You can tell this one 'til you're blue in the face, "Masks don't do anything at all," but you won't talk him out of his mask or his firm belief and your option at that point will be to stay away on a permanent basis or "lie" to him by wearing a mask so you can keep in touch. The claim is that "Masks don't work." You may choose to believe that, but proving a negative is pretty near impossible.)
So, when Paul tells us to not eat meat sacrificed to idols around those who believe it's a sin, he was telling us to sin by lying to them?
Studies can be made to say whatever the studier wants. Studies say coffee is good for you, others say it causes cancer. Studies say makes help reduce the spread of Covid, some say they're ineffective. And we'll agree with those studies that say what we want and flat out ignore the ones that disagree. If masks are even 25% effective at reducing the spread of viruses, then that means they are effective at their job. Nothing we do will ever be 100% effective at stopping the spread. That doesn't mean we do nothing.
"Just a quick question, Art. Have you come across someone who was scared and wore a mask to protect themselves and you've been able, by not wearing a mask, to end their fear?"
No. I've not been given the opportunity to discuss this with such a person. But you're distorting my point. It's not merely the refusal of wearing a mask which I've ever claimed would stand as such an argument in the first place.
Your parenthetical is also problematic. I don't deny anyone the right to believe what they want. If the relative believes it protects him, he is more than free to choose to wear it. But what of those who wear it and get sick anyway? To ignore that when making the decision is also a choice some make. Fine. But it tells me something different than it does them. Such people I would choose to avoid anyway, which then satisfies the both of us. For those normally close to me, it's as if we're not in the same room when covered in such a manner, unable to touch them or come close.
Wear it if you like. Wear it if you feel you must. I choose not to bother with that which has such minimal effectiveness, when it doesn't do much more but add to all that delays the inevitable and maintains susceptibility. I'm confident in my immune system and do all I can to strengthen it. Herd immunity is what I'm after and all the mandates have prevented that from happening. Likely, we'd have it by now without it all. Then, the irrationally fearful can get their shots and still wear their masks.
While checking for responses to my response, I came across this which I intended to address but didn't:
"So, when Paul tells us to not eat meat sacrificed to idols around those who believe it's a sin, he was telling us to sin by lying to them?"
I have no idea how one might suggest I intend to lie to anyone about anything with regard to mask wearing. It's bad enough this verse had already been inappropriately offered with regard to this issue, but to twist it further...for I have no idea what reason...is truly troubling.
If there's been any lying, it's been from government and government health officials. Their refusal to speak truthfully on the issue at all times has led to irrational fear with regard to the severity of this virus.
I think you missed the point of the question. You wouldn't wear a mask for the benefit of others who were scared of COVID because that would be lying to them about the validity of their fears. Paul said that meat offered to idols was perfectly okay but he wouldn't eat meat if that would offend them. It would appear, comparing your position with Paul's position, that you would say that Paul was lying to them about the meat because he acquiesced to their fears.
Just by way of explanation of the question.
Didn't you mention you have emphysema? Wouldn't that put you in the at risk category? Your lungs are already compromised, that definitely doesn't sound like a healthy immune system.
The reference to Paul was primarily as Stan stated. Both are similar actions for similar reasons. But I also reference Paul because I see it as a principal for life. If it is of no critical significance, it would be a good witness to show you care about others by acquiescing to their fear and misgivings. Sure, explain why you believe they are wrong, but to do so in the face of what they see as wrong is not a good witness for Christ. By not wearing a mask, you are saying to others, "I care more about my comfort than I do yours." And as a Christian, that is a bad place to be. Thus is the principal put forth by Paul.
"You wouldn't wear a mask for the benefit of others who were scared of COVID because that would be lying to them about the validity of their fears."
That's not what I said.
"Paul said that meat offered to idols was perfectly okay but he wouldn't eat meat if that would offend them."
Paul said he wouldn't eat meat because those "weak" Christians truly believed it was sinful and he feared eating meat in front of them might entice them to act against their conscience, which would be as luring them into sin. This is because if one feels an act is sinful, and then commits that act, one has sinned, despite the fact the act wasn't actually sinful.
"It would appear, comparing your position with Paul's position, that you would say that Paul was lying to them about the meat because he acquiesced to their fears."
I don't believe Paul intended to simply let the weak Christians live on believing wrongfully, but only that while they did, he wasn't about to lure them to sin...to make them "stumble"...by influencing them by his eating of meat sacrificed to idols. If he had no intention of enlightening them... of teaching them the truth so that they came to a better understanding...then he would be committing a sin of omission to let them go on believing something that wasn't true. How he acts in their presence before that epiphany comes upon them is his point. I know the chapter doesn't get beyond how he deals while they're wrongly believing, but it makes no sense to suggest it ends there. Again...sin of omission.
"Didn't you mention you have emphysema? Wouldn't that put you in the at risk category? Your lungs are already compromised, that definitely doesn't sound like a healthy immune system."
Yes, yes and you might not think so. Yet, I haven't been sick in about six years. That sounds pretty healthy regardless of my condition, doesn't it? The strength of my immune system might account for the slow progress of the disease as well. I was diagnosed sometime around, 2004 or 2005. But, as the virus is a respiratory issue, there are those who are concerned about me with regard to it. More so than I am.
"The reference to Paul was primarily as Stan stated. Both are similar actions for similar reasons."
But they're not, and that's my point. The issue with Paul was over a crisis of conscience on the part of those who continued to believe eating meat sacrificed to idols as sinful. Unless you're suggesting that all mask wearers everywhere are concerned not doing so is illegal, it's a totally unrelated situation...particularly since it was presented as concern for the fear wearers have if they stop masking...or the fear of being around unmasked people regardless of whether or not they're wearing one.
"If it is of no critical significance, it would be a good witness to show you care about others by acquiescing to their fear and misgivings."
No it isn't. It's being an enabler, and that's not healthy for the enabled. If you had said "acknowledging their fears" that would be one thing. But acquiescing to them is to give tacit agreement their fears are rational and fact-based. And again, what are your limitations to this concept? How much of your life are you willing to alter on the chance that you might be poking at the baseless fears of others in order to appease your guilt that you might not be a good witness? Is it only the irrational fears of mask wearers that provokes this in you, or are you investigating what other fears lurk in the hearts of men you can alleviate by altering your existence for their benefit?
"By not wearing a mask, you are saying to others, "I care more about my comfort than I do yours.""
By suggesting such a thing about one not wearing a mask, you're suggesting you have the insight to the heart of another you don't possess. And as a Christian, that's a bad place to be. I don't insist anyone remove their mask. I allow for their irrational fears by allowing them to act on them as they see fit. Thus, I care for their "comfort" just fine, thank you very much.
The only thing I ask is that they speak up. One fella at work wears a mask AND a shield over his face. He's a soft spoken guy to begin with and before all this I often had to ask him to repeat himself. Even without my tinnitus that would be the case. Do I now need a hearing aid so that no one has to raise their voice on my account? Would I be thinking too much of my own comfort to expect people to speak up without my asking? What's the Biblical protocol now?
Paul wasn't dealing in creature comforts. He was dealing in spiritual matters. Or, if you prefer, the fear of sinning against Christ. The fearful granny is in fear of contracting a potentially fatal illness...which in most cases isn't fatal. 1 Cor 8 does not apply here.
As information and not argumentation, I thought I'd point out that there are believers that believe that wearing/not wearing a mask is sin. On one side, the primary argument is, "My face is the representation of being made in the image of God and covering that would be sinful." On the other side the primary argument is, "Not being concerned for the fears of others without good cause is not loving and, therefore, a sin." Just sayin'.
Guess it's good to know you don't care how you portray christian ethics. No regard for how others will perceive Christ through your actions. I don't wear a mask because I believe it will do much, I wear it because people around me believe it does, and to demonstrate love and consideration I will wear a mask in their presence. You prefer to maintain your liberty over the comfort and "safety" of others. I, however don't expect others to acquiesce to my qualms because I don't expect Christ-like actions from others.
David,
I can't find in Scripture where it says it's a sin when not wearing a mask just because others are paranoid. I agree with Art that Paul's teaching had to do people who thought it was a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I sincerely doubt that anyone would think it is a sin to wear or not wear a mask.
Actually, Glenn, there are indeed those on both sides of the equation that believe it is a sin to wear or not wear a mask. I've seen both of their arguments (and summarized them above).
I wasn't claiming it was a sin to wear it not wear a mask, only that the principal is the same.
Stan,
I'd tell them to show me from Scripture that sin is involved.
After all, many Christians think women wearing pants is a sin.
"I wasn't claiming it was a sin to wear it not wear a mask, only that the principal is the same."
The principle Paul was expressing necessarily related to the belief that a particularly action was sinful, even though it was not, and how engaging in that action might provoke the weak Christian to act against his wrongful belief and as a result be guilty of having committed a sin. Thus, the principle was luring another to sin by ignoring the belief of that person. The wrongful belief regarding the sinfulness of an action is not at all the same principle as a fear of death.
"You prefer to maintain your liberty over the comfort and "safety" of others."
Why you need to believe this about me is troubling. Can't your sanctimony survive without accusing me of selfishness? But let's go with it: I have two issues of my own. The first is my own pulmonary shortcomings and the problems having my airways obstructed can cause. That would be both comfort and safety that you suggest I disregard for the sake of the comfort and safety of others. I don't exist apart from my wife and family. If my comfort and safety are compromised, their comfort and safety is as well. But I guess in your mind that's just fine so long as the comfort and safety of total strangers is protected despite the unlikely possibility they'll die from contracting the virus.
Second, I deal with tinnitus. I can't hear what masked people are saying. I had a co-worker speaking directly to me...in an animated way, even. Despite my insistence I couldn't hear him, he didn't take off the damned mask. What if he was warning me of danger? I guess in your mind, the risk to me of being unable to hear is OK so long as he's protected against a virus he'll likely not contract or die if he does.
There's also a broader concern with regard to liberty for all of us. The more sheep continue to abide moronic mandates simple research and study suggests is entirely unnecessary except for the most physically vulnerable, the more likely you'll be willingly loaded into box cars headed for a nice shower. A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but giving up your liberty means you aren't deserving of it. Yet, I'm not so unconcerned about the effect of incremental attacks on our liberty as you and Stan appear to be. There's nothing Christian about ignoring governmental encroachment and the harm it has on all Americans.
There's also nothing Christian about attaching malevolent intent to my choices.
And by the way, do you constantly inform the masked that you wear yours to be a good Christian, or do you expect that they'll just pick up on that as if they give a flyin' rat's patoot why you do what you do? What makes you think they regard you at all, but simply only care that you're not infecting them through both your mask and theirs? I'm glad you guys feel so good and holy about yourselves when you wear your mask in front of others. I'm disappointed you choose to think so poorly of those who don't feel as you do, and assign to them nasty intent.
Which studies should I follow then? There are studies that say both things, masks help, masks don't help. I accuse you of not caring because of the reasons you submit for not wearing a mask. I know it's hard in reading, but the tone of your comments is one of hostility toward those who wear masks, as opposed to my indifference.
As for being sanctimonious, I'm fine with being seen as holy, it's kind of the goal of sanctification. I'm commanded to be holy as my Father is holy, so I strive for it.
David, sanctimonious is "making a show of being morally superior to other people." Not quite "holy."
Art, it's always disappointing to me when fellow believers decide to make it a fight rather than a discussion. "Oh, yeah, well you're just as bad or worse." Both sides. One side doesn't say, "It looks to me as if you're ... so perhaps you can tell me how you're not." The other side doesn't say, "Well, perhaps I can see how you might say that, but here's what's really going on ..." And we clearly don't care about building one another up in our communication with fellow believers (Eph 4:29). (Please notice that "we" is a plural word.)
I apologize, Art. I read your words in a way that maybe you didn't mean. I shouldn't have let your quips drive my responses. You are perfectly right in your ability to choose to not wear a mask around people, even if I don't agree with you or believe in the studies that say both things.
Stan, please forgive me for letting this get less than friendly.
Let's all agree that masks are dumb and forget about them.
Good gosh. I'm only trying to clarify my position and it seems my efforts are futile. I am neither hostile nor indifferent to those who freely choose to wear masks for whatever reasons they may have. I can't say the same about those who give me grief for choosing otherwise and pretending they know my heart. I do not lack compassion for those who wear masks out of fear for their own health/lives. Irrational belief is not a joke, particularly when provoked by false claims by those in government. Allowing irrational fear to fester and metastasize just to calm the fearful is not compassion. And once again, there is absolutely no parallel between this situation and that which Paul teaches in 1 Cor 8.
I'm done.
All right. Not quite done. I want to leave this discussion with this little tidbit for your serious consideration. Your jeans and shorts can't stop your farts from stinking up the place. What good then can the average mask do?
You have arrived at my other post on the subject, where "effective" in your vocabulary is defined as "blocking all gases whatsoever" and in others it is "decreasing the effect." In yours, the measure of "what good" is "Must be 100% or no good" and for many "30%" is "good." (Note: If the measure of "effective" is "blocking all gases," the only "effective" mask would be a tightly wound Saran Wrap mask. I think some have recommended it to Fauci for his personal use.)
Post a Comment