Perhaps predictably, last week’s post about ‘ministry in the year of covid19’ generated quite a bit of interest. This week’s edition is a follow-up about the power and possibilities of ‘one-another ministry’ in these difficult times, with one practical suggestion to think about next.
Not sure that I agree, although I truly appreciate the sentiment. With my medical microbiologist and population health academic hat on, I believe that it is unwise to promote any non-essential interaction between households or, for that matter, between the generations where this is possible.
Both adults and children who become infected can transmit the virus and this could have devastating consequences for more senior people with whom they come into contact or with whom the reside. And the converse is true. Adults can pass the virus on to their children who, contrary to the popular view, can become seriously ill or even perish.
The government hand-washing and social distancing guidelines are important but they are much less effective in preventing viral transmission than rigorous self isolation. It is sobering to note that many governments around the world have been reluctant to impose more freedom-limiting measures in response to the pandemic for obvious economic and ideological reasons, and our government has been among those until very recently.
So, this presents a terrible conundrum forbchurch leaders, especially those who value the 'body of Christ' metaphor as the defining paradigm for 'church'. My suggestion would be to promote only within-household clusters for the present, despite the obvious challenges and limitations this presents.
I'm trying to find ways for people to dip into our heritage and meet up to do morning/evening prayer together- a great way to do corporate Bible reading, confession, and prayer. We had a skype one on Monday night for people who are unable to physically meet due to safety reasons, it was really encouraging except time lag made it horrible to say things simultaneously (like the Lord's prayer)- hoping 2's and 3's can make use of this for face to face one to another ministry tool as well.
I think this is a helpful suggestion. I'd want to add that there is a very significant no of people in our churches who won't take initiatives to be part of one of these and who will be more anxious than others. Differing levels of maturity within our congregations means some are far more vulnerable to doubting God's goodness and sovereign hand at a time like this. In all the talk about streaming stuff online, which is useful, I don't see urgent discussion about how to help less mature, more vulnerable believers through this. I know that, in my neck of the woods, some have not and will not watch anything online, and they are worried, anxious and not sure what to make of all this. They have to be our priority; they are brother and sisters in Christ, but who very vulnerable. So then, let's see if this idea of triplets can be organised in such a way as to ensure those at risk of falling away, speaking humanly, are front and centre.
I had been thinking along similar lines Tony. But rather than using the growth group structures, which I think should continue as their own entity, I was contemplating creating prayer triplets from the wider congregation, crossing demographics and outside the natural social circles of church members, as a way to help us remain in fellowship as a church. This will particularly care for those who are more socially isolated or new to the church, and continue to build relationships amongst the congregation, as I suspect many people will naturally keep in contact with their friends but it will be harder to feel like there is any relationship with other church members. And if we move away from any face to face, smaller groups are more easily transferred to a group chat or simple video call where you are able to all contribute to a discussion and share prayer points
Not sure that I agree, although I truly appreciate the sentiment. With my medical microbiologist and population health academic hat on, I believe that it is unwise to promote any non-essential interaction between households or, for that matter, between the generations where this is possible.
Both adults and children who become infected can transmit the virus and this could have devastating consequences for more senior people with whom they come into contact or with whom the reside. And the converse is true. Adults can pass the virus on to their children who, contrary to the popular view, can become seriously ill or even perish.
The government hand-washing and social distancing guidelines are important but they are much less effective in preventing viral transmission than rigorous self isolation. It is sobering to note that many governments around the world have been reluctant to impose more freedom-limiting measures in response to the pandemic for obvious economic and ideological reasons, and our government has been among those until very recently.
So, this presents a terrible conundrum forbchurch leaders, especially those who value the 'body of Christ' metaphor as the defining paradigm for 'church'. My suggestion would be to promote only within-household clusters for the present, despite the obvious challenges and limitations this presents.
Sorry to not be more encouraging.
Thanks Tony,
I'm trying to find ways for people to dip into our heritage and meet up to do morning/evening prayer together- a great way to do corporate Bible reading, confession, and prayer. We had a skype one on Monday night for people who are unable to physically meet due to safety reasons, it was really encouraging except time lag made it horrible to say things simultaneously (like the Lord's prayer)- hoping 2's and 3's can make use of this for face to face one to another ministry tool as well.
I really wish you hadn’t used that title as it alludes to a poor reasoning and interpretation that so many believers have regarding Matthew 18:20.
Thanks Tony. Thanks for putting into words my hesitation to moving everything online to virtual church.
A great idea, just need to clean before and after and keep distance. Simple things..
I think this is a helpful suggestion. I'd want to add that there is a very significant no of people in our churches who won't take initiatives to be part of one of these and who will be more anxious than others. Differing levels of maturity within our congregations means some are far more vulnerable to doubting God's goodness and sovereign hand at a time like this. In all the talk about streaming stuff online, which is useful, I don't see urgent discussion about how to help less mature, more vulnerable believers through this. I know that, in my neck of the woods, some have not and will not watch anything online, and they are worried, anxious and not sure what to make of all this. They have to be our priority; they are brother and sisters in Christ, but who very vulnerable. So then, let's see if this idea of triplets can be organised in such a way as to ensure those at risk of falling away, speaking humanly, are front and centre.
I had been thinking along similar lines Tony. But rather than using the growth group structures, which I think should continue as their own entity, I was contemplating creating prayer triplets from the wider congregation, crossing demographics and outside the natural social circles of church members, as a way to help us remain in fellowship as a church. This will particularly care for those who are more socially isolated or new to the church, and continue to build relationships amongst the congregation, as I suspect many people will naturally keep in contact with their friends but it will be harder to feel like there is any relationship with other church members. And if we move away from any face to face, smaller groups are more easily transferred to a group chat or simple video call where you are able to all contribute to a discussion and share prayer points