Should worship be considered an essential service?

By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

 

CHULA VISTA, California — The question has come up: Should churches and other houses of worship be considered, “an essential service”? The President recently announced that he would override governors who do not open up the houses of worship for services. Moreover, it has been argued by many that places of worship are no less “essential” than liquor stores or supermarkets. Both these places should not be reopened before religious services.[1] The President’s position here is logical; by insisting that houses of worship be reopened, he is appealing to his evangelical supporters. Presidents in office often use the “bully pulpit” to promote an agenda that the President personally endorses. 

Had the President opposed the reopening places of worship, I suspect the opposition party would probably have clamored that they be open. Sometimes it does not matter what position a President takes when it involves a controversial issue. There will always be a host of critics, who consider the President a mortal enemy.

Still, the question concerning the status of houses of worship being an “essential services” is a relevant question intelligent people ought to be able to discuss dispassionately and intellectually—without rancor, and without accusations or acrimony.

Confining people to their homes can also prove dangerous for one’s health—and one’s mental health. The number of suicides has experienced a dramatic increase since the coronavirus lockdown began. The stories we read in the papers are legion and tragic.

·         In Germany, the state finance minister committed suicide because he was worried about a looming economic disaster.

·         A British teenager took her life because she was distressed by the social distancing measures, keeping her away from her friends.

·         An Italian nurse who feared spreading the virus to other people succumbed to her depression and committed suicide.

·         One county in Washington State reported a surge in suicide, mostly among men in their 30’s and 40s.

Some studies claim that COVID-19 threatens tens of thousands of lives stemming from rampant unemployment, isolation and an uncertain future. This could well lead to 75,000 deaths from drug or alcohol abuse and suicide, new research suggests.[i]

Aside from the rise in suicides, many couples are feuding more with one another since the lockdown began. The absence of personal space can also take its toll on relationships. In general, suicides are a social problem that can be measured in numerous studies. This year, may well be a recent all-time high.[2] For us, as Charles Dickens who wrote in the beginning of his Tale of Two Cities,

·         It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Despite the great success we have seen in our economy, we are now witnessing hard times that challenge our ability to come back. When we consider the millions of unemployed people who are in lockdown, we must remember that this dilemma threatens the mental health and spirit of our nation. This situation makes a persuasive case for why the houses of worship play an “essential service” in keeping the mental and spiritual health of our nation healthy.

In my research over the last few months, I have read about the numerous pandemics that have occurred in recorded history. Now we shall attempt to compare the Coronavirus Pandemic to the most severe pandemic of the last 150 years—the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919, also known as the “Spanish Flu.”

Historically, the influenza pandemic was caused by the H1N1 influenza. It began in Europe, in the spring of 1918, and lasted till the summer of 1919. Over 500,000 people were infected—which was a third of the world’s population. The number of deaths attributed to this pandemic have been estimated anywhere from 17 million to a 100 million people. Although it was not as deadly as some of the earlier pandemics, most notably, the Black Death, the Spanish Influenza is on record as one of the most dangerous pandemics of history.

As I began reading about the Spanish Influenza pandemic, I came across the response of religious institutions of that time. I wondered: Were places of worship open throughout the pandemic? The answer I came across was enlightening.

During the Spanish Influenza pandemic, churches and synagogues remained closed, along with cinemas, theaters, music halls, and Sunday schools. As with today, the closure of churches generated considerable controversy. Even the closing of schools also proved controversial.  However, the Catholic Church took a different approach. Churches remained open throughout the epidemic, and many religious ceremonies and processions were celebrated during that time, which only exacerbated the spread of the disease. One historian observed:

In the first days of October, for example, the Bishop of Zamora [Castile], concerned ‘because the reigning evil is due to our sins and ingratitude’, organized a week-long series of religious acts in honor of the Virgin Mary. Although the sanitary officials protested and tried to prevent people crowding into churches, it was to no avail. At the end, the Bishop congratulated himself on the large attendance “as one of the most significant victories Catholicism has obtained.” Zamora was the capital that registered the highest mortality during the epidemic. But although some religious authorities can be accused of unjustified ignorance during the epidemic, it must not be forgotten that among the thousands of anonymous heroes and heroines who put their lives in danger so that the sick could have care and assistance, there were many nuns and priests.[ii]

In Philadelphia, all churches, schools, theaters were closed. Even public funerals were prohibited.  Curiously, only one public gathering place was allowed to remain open: the saloon. It is odd that today, the liquor stores are considered an essential service for people.

And while there are obvious similarities to the coronavirus, let us make this point perfectly clear: the coronavirus was mild when compared to the dangers of the Spanish Influenza. Unlike the coronavirus, the Influenza pandemic geometrically exploded, as the historian John Barry noted, “In ten days—ten days!—the epidemic had exploded from a few hundred civilian cases and one or two deaths a day to hundreds of thousands ill and hundreds of deaths each day.”  Furthermore:

Federal, municipal, and state courts closed. Giant placards everywhere warned the public to avoid crowds and use handkerchiefs when sneezing or coughing. Other placards read “Spitting equals death.” People who spat on the street were arrested—sixty in a single day. The newspapers reported the arrests—even while continuing to minimize the epidemic. Physicians were themselves dying, three one day, two another, four the next. The newspapers reported those deaths—on inside pages with other obituaries—even while continuing to minimize the epidemic. Health and city workers wore masks constantly.[3]

Barry goes on to say that every city in the United States closed down its churches and places of worship. But beyond that:

It was as if the virus were a hunter. It was hunting mankind. It found man in the cities easily, but it was not satisfied. It followed him into towns, then villages, then individual homes. It searched for him in the most distant corners of the earth. It hunted him in the forests, tracked him into jungles, pursued him onto the ice. And in those most distant corners of the earth, in those places so inhospitable that they barely allowed man to live, in those places where man was almost wholly innocent of civilization, man was not safer from the virus. He was more vulnerable. . .

When we think about worship as an “essential service,” we might be wise to remember the great pandemics of the past. When we look at it from that perspective, the overreaction to the coronavirus begins to make more sense.

However, one could counter by saying that the coronavirus is bad, but it cannot begin to compare to the great pandemics of the last 200 years.

And maybe they might be right.

In defense of the position that worship is an essential service, we could counter that congregations are communities that provide love and support to the young and old alike. Worship centers are often in the front lines when it comes to ministering to those who are sick and suffering.  

If people can maintain proper social- distancing in Walmart or the local liquor store, why can’t they act that way in a house of worship? Sometimes I think our leaders treat their people as if they were immature children—incapable of following the social-distancing guidelines. Threatening worshipers with fines and incarceration is lame—especially when considering the number of dangerous felons who have been released to roam the streets for their next target.

Perhaps the “essential services” argument has merit.   

The State of Israel recently opened up synagogues on the condition that the worshipers observe the social-distancing. Those who object to the opening up of houses of worship claim the danger of contagion has not fully abated in all the states.  

Regardless where one stands on the issue, new challenges often force us to reinterpret our faith. Jewish tradition has always possessed the ability to reinvent itself since biblical times. The only thing etched in stone is the Ten Commandments—and everything else is negotiable! Community worship has always been one of the most important ways people show solidarity with one another. Yet, with the social-distancing rules, most places of worship that I am familiar with are reluctant to hold services for fear of contagion.

Enter the Internet and livestreaming. And admittedly, I have noticed that in some ways we have attracted larger crowds from all over the country who wish to participate in our services. But such a concept was unknown to many members of the clergy like myself.

This is a whole new experience. To paraphrase Captain Kirk, “We have boldly gone to places no other synagogue has gone before.” Livestreaming a service is fine and good, but there is one important question every faith community ought to address.

Is this how services will be conducted in the future once we return to normalcy?

I am reminded of an old story. On the Eve of Yom Kippur, a man came to his rabbi and asked him the following question, “I have a quandary. Tonight, is the first night of the World Series, but it is also the night of Yom Kippur. What should I do?” Feeling annoyed, the Rabbi quipped, “Have you ever heard of a VCR?” The congregant replied, “Oh thank you Rabbi, I will videotape the Kol Nidre Services!” There is a real danger if our services become a video facsimile of a real service. Live participation grabs the worshiper in a way that livestreaming cannot.

As the coronavirus continues to abate, the pathway to resuming services in the faith communities will have to move incrementally. If history has taught us anything, rash behavior advocated by leaders of the faith community does not serve it well.