The main problem is different convictions:
"Some will be eager to meet in person and impatient to wait much longer to get back to normal. Others will insist it’s unwise to meet at all until there’s a vaccine. Plenty will fall somewhere in between."
And compounding that is the question:
"Have you noticed how remarkably confident so many of us are in our views right now? Unfounded certainty ... is a contagion at least as viral as COVID-19 itself."
This stuck me in the heart. I definitely fell into this camp. Even at times being certain that nobody really knows anything! It makes it difficult to act civilly when there are vastly different opinions that are held as facts.
This actually sounds very familiar to politics. Though, at least for me, politics often feels like a distant discussion without much influence on my day-to-day life. The pandemic is different. So even folks like myself, who generally don't pay much attention to politics, have entered the conversation with a firm - albeit non-expert - opinion on how things should be handled.
Sacrifice
Instead, the call is to place other's interests above ourselves, to hold the posture of a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1):
"someone might find it personally difficult—even maddening—to have to wear a mask during church and stay six feet away from everyone at all times. You might think these precautions are a needless overreaction. But here’s the thing: even if it turns out you’re right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?"
and
"Likewise, those who think the lockdowns should continue should not pass judgment on those who question the wisdom of the government’s ongoing restrictions. Churches should strive to honor people on both sides of the spectrum."
Patience
What a good article! And it continues to talk about patience.
"To be sure, it is good and right to be eager to gather again... But we should be careful to not rush it. We should be careful to not go faster than governments allow, or faster than those in our community can understand. We should be patient with a timeline that might be slower than we’d prefer; patient with a reopening process that will doubtless be clunky; patient with leaders feeling the pressure of this complex situation; and patient with one another as we figure out the new normal. Those who are not comfortable with physical gatherings should be patient with those who are, and vice versa."
I'll be honest, I actually enjoyed the break, so I'm totally OK with a slow transition. Not out of health concerns, but because I enjoyed having an open calendar. I also understand I'm blessed to keep my standard of living, which is not true for everyone.
Jessi and I have talked about doing mini-quarantines going forward. It's a stay-cation: where you stop all normal activities, but you don't travel either. We do take breaks from activities, but it's usually not all at once and we have a tendance to fill that time with other activities. I'd like to institute some sort of regular family retreat/stay-cation/mini-quarantine.
Now having said that, I already know I'll struggle with being patient with "a reopening process that will doubtless be clunky." This is where I will need to regularly remind myself that they're human too and this is new to everyone.
Nuance
I appreciate the final thoughts on nuance. The idea of both seemingly opposite ideas can be true at the same time. We're encouraged to take
"the path that prizes both courage and prudence, and avoids both pollyannaish and doomsday responses. It means we can be skeptical of some aspects of the lockdown without resorting to outrageous conspiracy theories, and we can honor governing authorities (Rom. 13) while engaging them in civil pushback when necessary."
The whole article is great and articulates my sentiments well. I recommend reading the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment