# Flu and Worship



## jwithnell (May 1, 2009)

I would think that a number of congregations started discussion "what ifs" when avian flu hit the news a few years ago. Have any of your congregations stated any changes in case of a pandemic? I would have to think public worship on Sunday should go on, regardless, but other group events, such as Sunday school would be canceled?


----------



## OPC'n (May 1, 2009)

I would suggest that you stay home if you get the flu. You don't want to spread it to others. Missing one worship service in order to keep others healthy is a wise decision.


----------



## Scottish Lass (May 1, 2009)

We received a letter from one of our missionaries in San Luis, Mexico. They were ordered to close churches, just like all other gathering places. I imagine we would hold worship unless directed otherwise by officials.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> I would suggest that you stay home if you get the flu. You don't want to spread it to others. Missing one worship service in order to keep others healthy is a wise decision.


----------



## jwithnell (May 1, 2009)

I thought staying home when sick could go without saying. I was wondering about the broader congregational-wide type decision level. What provisions are being considered by church officers for their local congregations?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (May 1, 2009)

Influenza A is contagious 1 day prior to symptoms being apparent. Just something to throw out there. A member may not know they have it and spread it to everyone before coming down with the flu on Monday morning or so.


----------



## Whitefield (May 1, 2009)

I'm going into my bunker. Let me know when it is over.


----------



## TheocraticMonarchist (May 1, 2009)

This is why individual communion cups are the best


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan (May 1, 2009)

Catholic churches here are changing their services:

Fear of flu reaches into Catholic rituals - News - Starbulletin.com


----------



## OPC'n (May 2, 2009)

I think we all will live! It's no different than other flu and if you are not feeling sick then go to church. If it makes you feel better, wear a mask....but then you will have to wear a mask at all times where ever you go. Not really practical. I probably had swine flu not too long ago and I lived. MD's are telling people to go home and take care of themselves cuz they wouldn't do anything for them....unless they are death's bed of course. But I don't think we should panic over this really. There are cases in NY and those people haven't even been hospitalized. The gov is just trying to panic us in order to gain control. If you can get people to fear and then show you are in control, then you will get control....he's called Obama!


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (May 2, 2009)

TheocraticMonarchist said:


> This is why individual communion cups are the best



This is why churches should use port wine, which is typically 18-20% alcohol, and wipe the rim of the cup with a napkin soaked in alcohol between communicants, as they do in Anglican churches.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 2, 2009)

If I had the flu I wouldn't go to worship services out of love to my brethren - many of whom may not have an immune system able to adequately fend it off. I think this is pretty obvious as the "correct" answer.

HOWEVER...

What if I DIDN'T have the flu and there WAS a pandemic of it going on? Would I, as a safety precaution, keep me and/or my family at home?

NO.

Why not? Because I love my Lord too much to let fear keep me away from His worship. And I love my brethren too much to let my own fear foster fear within themselves. Fear begets fear. People are encouraged by _courage_. Remember that. And as for my dear children and my wife? Well, beliefs have consequences. And as long as my family is in my house they are subject to my beliefs, and my beliefs are that God's people should not skip out on worship services out of fear.


----------



## jwithnell (May 2, 2009)

I definitely agree that the bride of Christ should never fear anything in this world enough to forsake assembling together for worship. But what about other assemblies that, strictly speaking, are optional? Nursery? Ladies' Bible study, etc., etc. This seems like a legitimate sixth commandment question to me.

We have been blessed to live in an era in which most adults can go about their lives not having to be that concerned infectious disease. Likely, a 1918-style flu will occur again -- if not the swine flu, than another, or something like SARs. 

As a society we're mostly too young to remember the pre-vaccine, pre-antibiotic days when a disease could wipe out groups of folks.

Churches and individuals who _don't_ take the time to ask these questions are playing right into the hands of those who would rather see government solve all our problems.


----------



## Montanablue (May 2, 2009)

I don't think the current flu situation is serious enough to merit canceling public worship. There's only been one death (and it was actually a Mexican child who was visiting family in the US).

However, in the case that we did have a epidemic of, say, Spanish flu or Bubonic plague proportions, and all other public gatherings were halted, I think it would be wise to cancel public worship. Of course, individual families would still hold private worship and celebrate their Sabbath as usual. I can understand why many would be hesitant to cancel public worship. In the midst of an epidemic, worship would seem especially necessary and comforting. However, in the case that canceling a worship service could save dozens of lives, I think it would be the best course of action.

Note that I think it would only be appropriate in the most dire of circumstances. Certainly not appropriate for the situation we have now.


----------



## Theoretical (May 2, 2009)

A good, well-researched book to learn about the Spanish flu pandemic, and how radically different societal reactions resulted in far different outcomes is found in Amazon.com: The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History: John M. Barry: Books. It's very matter of fact and designed to inform, not induce panic.

What's most interesting and helpful is that Philadelphia, where information was restricted or misleading had many of the worst panics, lots of preventable deaths, and extreme fear break out among the populace. By contrast, in San Fransisco, the media reported that yes, it was a grim disease and what was entailed with it, but people served their neighbors and did not generally panic crazily.

I thought there were good insights on the whole, including about how government has handled pandemics well and how it has failed miserably.


----------



## Montanablue (May 2, 2009)

My father keeps encouraging me to read The Great Influenza. I think its going on my summer reading list...


----------

