In the beginning, there were two essential mainstream-press narratives about the coronavirus and religious worship.
The first was that most sane, science-affirming religious groups had moved their worship online and were cooperating with government authorities. The second was that there were lots of conservative white evangelicals who claimed (a) that God would shield them from the virus, (b) that COVID-19 was a myth, (c) they had some kind of First Amendment “religious liberty” right to gather for worship or (d) all of the above.
That approach was simplistic, from Day 1, for several reasons. Here at GetReligion we argued that the number of dissenters was actually surprisingly small — even in conservative religious traditions — and that the bigger story was the overwhelming majority of congregations that were doing everything they could to safely hold some kind of worship services, while honoring local laws and restrictions. Entire religious bodies — Catholic, Orthodox, Southern Baptists — developed plans for how to do that.
Early on, congregations trying to gather for worship outdoors — drive-in service of various kinds, especially — emerged as a crucial story angle. See this podcast and post, for example: “Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds.”
Now we have a must-read Washington Post update on the legal efforts by Capitol Hill Baptist Church to force officials in the District of Columbia to, well, allow worshippers the same local right of outdoor assembly as protesters and marchers. Here’s the headline: “Federal court allows D.C. church to hold services outdoors despite coronavirus restrictions.” And here is a crucial block of material right up top:
Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which has 850 members and no online worship services, has been meeting in a Virginia field. The U.S. District Court’s granting of a preliminary injunction allows the church to meet outdoors en masse in the city, where most of its members live, while its lawsuit moves forward.
The church was not seeking a class action, and the decision, which can be appealed, applies only to Capitol Hill Baptist.
Capitol Hill Baptist, which had twice sought a waiver before suing, centered its argument on comparing D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s ban on religious gatherings over 100 with her toleration and encouragement of massive anti-racism protests over the summer. The church’s brief notes that Bowser (D) appeared at a huge anti-racism rally in June, that the city police have been assigned to such events and that her office has not enforced its own ban on outdoor gatherings of more than 50 people.
Also note this:
The District had argued that Capitol Hill Baptist has other options, such as breaking into smaller groups for services or meeting online.
“But the District misses the point. It ignores the church’s sincerely held (and undisputed) belief about the theological importance of gathering in person as a full congregation,” wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee. “The District may think that its proposed alternatives are sensible substitutes.” But “it is not for [the District] to say that [the Church’s] religious beliefs” about the need to meet together as one corporal body “are mistaken or insubstantial.”
It’s a solid story, but never clearly states a crucial point about this case.
Capitol Hill Baptist leaders are not disputing the need for safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. They fit into another category altogether, in terms of those simplistic media assumptions about religions groups and the coronavirus.
In that earlier podcast post, I noted that — rather than two camps — the media needed to realize that there were at least five distinct groups of religious leaders involved in this life-and-death story. Here is an updated typology, based on that earlier post. Five camps?
(1) The overwhelming majority of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online during the early stages of the crisis.
(2) Religious leaders who, as their local governments moved into “stage two” or even “stage three” restrictions, worked to create services with smaller numbers of participants — in masks, with social distancing — or in open-air settings, with social distancing.
(3) The small number of preachers who continue to rebel against the laws, period.
(4) The many government leaders who have established reasonable restrictions and who have tried to be consistent when applying them to sacred and secular activities (churches faced same restrictions as sporting events, etc.)
(5) Some politicians who seem to think that outdoor religious events are more dangerous than their secular counterparts and who also think that gatherings inside churches are uniquely dangerous, as opposed to settings ranging from gambling establishments to on-campus debates and protests.
The Capitol Hill Baptist case pits religious leaders in camp (2) against government leaders in camp (5). The issue is whether valid restrictions, attempting to promote public safety, were being applied to religious institutions and “secular” gatherings in a consistent manner.
I don’t see how it is possible to view this as anything other than a debate about the “free exercise of religion” clause in the First Amendment.
But, that said, it’s crucial to note that rebels in camp (3) are making a different kind of First Amendment appeal than religious leaders in camp (2). It’s one thing to say, “We believe that the state cannot address safety issues in worship AT ALL,” versus stating that government regulations are valid and appropriate, but should consistently be applied to religious and “secular” events/groups in the same manner.
This leads me to the one paragraph in this story that left me scratching my head, a paragraph of interpretive material that contains zero attributions to other sources or voices. This starts out rather low-key and then, well, something seems to happen halfway in that is quite interesting.
Readers: What is going on here?
Coronavirus restrictions have proved a hot-button and politically polarizing issue inside U.S. congregations, as in society in general. For some, largely conservatives, they have tapped into a belief that religious liberties are under threat. Conservative groups have for the last decade stepped up their advocacy on the topic as LGBT rights have expanded, clashing at times with their beliefs that the Bible opposes same-sex marriage, among other things, and their ability to get public money.
I do appreciate the word “largely” in front of “conservatives” in this sentence: “For some, largely conservatives, they have tapped into a belief that religious liberties are under threat.”
That’s important since there are many old-guard First Amendment liberals who also believe that fights over religious liberty are real and ongoing, at the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere. Justice Anthony Kennedy certainly believed that these conflicts are real and will ultimately need to be resolved.
Thoughts on what is going on in that paragraph? Please leave them in the comments pages.