How Religious Groups in Illinois are Responding to COVID-19

The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago conducted a survey of religious organizations between July 3, 2020 and August 10, 2020, to learn about how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The web site for the survey results is here, the executive summary is here, and the full report is here.  At a minimum, read the executive summary.

Here are some of the things that stand out to me:

• Larger congregations were more likely to have staff layoffs.  Larger congregations probably have larger staffs and so more people that can be laid off.  So this might not be a big surprise.
• The congregations with fewer financial resources are the congregations most concerned about surviving.  This finding matches what has been noted in other blog posts.
• Many congregations have adapted their services.  70% have started offering live streams, 39% have limited the attendance of in-person services, and 36% are offering pre-recorded services.  26% have suspended all of their church meetings.

The big question is:  to what extent will any of these changes be permanent?  Some of the congregational leaders who responded to the survey mentioned changes in their priorities, and that could lead to more permanent changes in operations.  But even things such as the increased live streams and pre-recorded services could continue.

Pope Francis, Same-sex Civil Unions, and Tension

The world has been abuzz this week with news that Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has revealed his support for same-sex civil unions in a soon-to-be-released documentary (on another topic).  The excitement is because this support for same-sex civil unions stands in contrast to Roman Catholic Church's long-standing official opposition to same-sex marriages.

This blog post here written by a Jesuit Priest at the Religion News Service does a good job of clarifying what we should take away from this news.  One is that this position is not new for the pope himself.  It's a position that he has personally held for years.  Another is that the opinion expressed is about "civil unions" not "marriages," a distinction that is important for a church that remains opposed to same-sex marriages.  There is also a figure in the blog post showing just how divergent views about homosexuality are around the world.  I want you to consider that figure.

Later this quarter we will learn of the concept of "tension" for religious groups.  Tension refers to how that religious group relates to its surrounding social and cultural environment.  Higher tension means that the group is relatively distinct and separated in its beliefs and practices from the rest of society.

However, society changes, and there is perhaps nothing that has changed so rapidly during your lifetime in many parts of the world than views about same-sex relationships.  American society has overall become much accepting of same-sex relationships (including legally-recognized marriages) in the last couple decades.  But that is not true everyone in the world, as that figures shows.

As society changes, a religious group's tension can go up or down depending on how much its beliefs, teachings, and practices change.  A group that does not undergo significant change can find itself in higher tension when society has changed, such as is the case in the U.S. with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.  The Roman Catholic Church has seen its tension increase as Americans' views on this topic have shifted.

Will Pope Francis's admission lead to a decrease in tension for Roman Catholics in the U.S.?  And how will the tension change in other areas of the world where acceptance of homosexuality remains weak?

COVID-19 and Competing Synagogues

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, many people feared that some churches would not survive the pandemic.  (See this earlier blog post here if you are interested.)  Several months into the pandemic, those same fears persist.

This article at the Religion News Service, written by a Rabbi in Los Angeles, discusses how the challenges of the pandemic will differ across Jewish synagogues.  For example, some larger synagogues have the resources to create nice online services, thereby keeping the congregation going, while smaller synagogues do not have those resources.  Will the smaller congregations be able to compete in a world that sees a permanent shift to online offerings?  Or will they be driven out of the religious marketplace?

The author also thinks that synagogue life will be forever changed, although he is not specific about what those changes will be.  But it is a good question to consider:  just how will synagogues (and congregations in other religious traditions) be permanently affected in their operations by COVID-19?  Will many of them transition to more online religious content and activities?  And will people view their own religious choices differently?

Court Rules Against a California Church's Appeal

When COVID-19 first the U.S., many state governments -- including California's government -- issued orders that religious groups must cancel all in-person church meetings because of fears that COVID-19 would be transmitted among religious church-goers.  While some states issued blanket prohibitions, other states did not place any restrictions on churches, and still others states were in between -- see here.

Although most Americans were okay with churches being restricted like other (secular) organizations and business, some think that religious groups should be have special permission to meet during the pandemic -- see here.  Given the disagreement, it should not be surprising that some parties have initiated legal challenges to government-issued orders.  One of these challenges was made months ago from a church in California, called Harvest Rock Church, which argued that the California governor's order treats secular organizations more favorably than religious groups.  They lost this argument in court, appealed the decision, and just last Thursday, another court ruled against their appeal in a 12-1 decision.  See this write up at the Religion Clause blog here.

The court's Thursday ruling explains that the state of California is treating religious groups like comparable secular events that have large groups congregating together, such going to movies or attending sporting events, and that the church did not sufficiently counter the government's claim that going to church is riskier than other secular activities like going shopping that are allowed.  In short, the church did not provide enough evidence to overturn the earlier ruling.

Churches in California are now able to meet in person with safety measures in place and restrictions on capacity, but that does not mean that the issue is dead.  Churches can still choose to contest the current situation by claiming that the current restrictions still inhibit the free exercise of religion.

This episode demonstrates how the practice of religion is situated within social and legal contexts.  The right to meet as a religious group is a protected one to be sure, but the realization of that right can depend on exigent circumstances.  The same is true of other protected rights, such as the freedom of speech.  Moreover, these rights are continually negotiated and contested.