Saturday, May 23, 2020

COVID-19: The Church Between Wonks and a Hard Place


NOTE: On Friday, May 22, The Centers for Disease Control issued Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith (link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/faith-based.html)

Churches should read the entire document, including these lines: “CDC offers these suggestions for faith communities to consider and accept, reject, or modify, consistent with their own faith traditions, in the course of preparing to reconvene for in-person gatherings while still working to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This guidance is not intended to infringe on rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or any other federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).”

Nothing in this essay contradicts any of the guidelines issued. In fact, the CDC’s guidance confirms my reasonable conclusions and recommendations.

Many churches are struggling with the contradiction of the continued ministry of the Gospel and government-mandated shutdowns imposed by COVID-19 mitigation strategies. This essay explores risks and resultant damage imposed as we pass yet another week with empty churches.


What’s at Risk?

A risk analysis seeks to express the intensity and likelihood of harm and the most effective ways to mitigate both the probability and severity of risks. We applied this approach in establishing our church security team and protocols. We desired to mitigate risks within the constraints of our facilities, available personnel, resources, the law, congregational sensitivities, available intelligence (sources of threats and intent), and existing capabilities.

The US military mission is a continuous process of collecting, aggregating, and analyzing information, identifying existing and emerging threats, and amassing the capabilities required to deter, disable, and/or destroy specific threats. While military risk analysis is process-heavy, it reflects what we do “naturally” as we conduct risk assessments continuously (and often subconsciously) nearly every waking moment. We take in a situation, determine what path presents the least overall risk within the objectives we have in mind, and then choose the best option. For example: to cross a busy street, we assess the density and speed of the traffic, the availability of pedestrian signals, the likelihood that drivers in this location will act in accordance with laws, and the distance across the street. We then consider our ability to cross the street within the allotted time. Then we might re-assess whether the shop across the street is worth all the trouble.

In this essay, I will review the current COVID-19 and ancillary situations within a risk assessment framework as a contribution to a church’s decision-making process.

Risk Assessment Process

A risk assessment is a structured, objective method of cataloging potential threats to business, organization, or church’s mission and goals (why it exists).[1] A formal risk assessment groups findings into categories: probability, threats, vulnerabilities, variables, harm, and assets.

Once risks are identified, mitigations are employed to reduce the probability, vulnerabilities, and/or the potential harm. All mitigations are subject to constraints: the limitations of resources and time.[2]

Mission and Goals

Before risk can be properly addressed, we need to know who or what is subject to harm or loss. Where there are people there will be a need for a church whose purpose is to teach, model, encourage, support, and conduct outreach to those who are not believers.
Implied in this mission are several goals:
·       Teaching (instruction) and disciple-making (modeling, encouragement, mutual support)
·       Fellowship (the facilitation of free communication and open dialogue)
·       Witness (the establishment and sustainment of the church’s reputation in the community as representatives of God and the proclamation of the Gospel)

Activities Support the Mission

A church’s mission requires both individual and corporate efforts. The primary corporate activities are Sunday morning worship, weeknight teaching times, small groups, counseling, and formal instruction (Sunday school). Supplemental and supporting corporate activities include bible studies, nursery and childcare, music, drama, youth activities, workdays, and meetings. Other supporting activities occur outside the church, such as visitation, hospital visits, fellowship and care of the aging and infirm, counseling, and other outreach. This brief catalog of church activities reinforces the conclusion that gathering and personal interaction is essential in fulfilling the goals and mission of the church.

Threats

There are many external and internal threats to the church, from overt hostile actions (i.e. active shooter) to latent hazards (icy walkways). As believers trusting in God, we leave many threats in His hands (meteorites striking the building, nuclear war, giant sinkholes, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.). Many churches have worked to address more likely threats such as fire, theft, child abuse, aggressive intruders, protestors, deranged individuals, child abduction, and more.


COVID-19 Risk Assessment

The most recent threat to directly impact the ministries of every church is the COVID-19 epidemic. The virus poses a direct threat of infection and subsequent sickness to individuals. Secondary effects of the virus include lack of elective and primary care and deferred tests.

Probability

The likelihood of church members being infected by COVID-19 remains unknown. The guidance on mask-wearing as a prophylactic measure varies (guidelines form the World Health Organization, the US Centers for Disease Control, state and local Departments of Health are not consistent). Many who have tested positive remain asymptomatic or suffer only mild, cold-like symptoms.
In addition, poor use of statistical analysis has skewed perceptions. In the most egregious example, “Fatality rates” were reported as: Total Fatalities/Total Tested Positive. This is flawed as the numerator should not be “total tested positive” but “total with the disease.”

“But how would we know how many have the disease if we don’t test?”

This is an excellent question, but guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the most state Departments of Health was testing was not recommended if symptoms were mild. The direction was to “stay home.” There is no way to know the total number with the disease until an antibody test is used to ascertain exposure. This would provide a more realistic denominator.

The severity of COVID-19 varies tremendously. Those infected by COVID-19 experience symptoms ranging from “none” to severe breathing problems and a patient’s condition can deteriorate from mildly ill to fatal in days.[3]   

In North America, up to 75% of all reported COVID-19 fatalities have occurred in long term care facilities. This aligns with reports from other countries.[4] The CDC stated that “... older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.” The CDC also listed pre-existing conditions that increase the likelihood of fatal complications due to COVID-19. These include asthma, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, hemoglobin disorders, liver disease, serious heart conditions, serious obesity, and those whose health is immunocompromised.[5]

Threats and Harm

COVID-19 threatens the health of individuals directly (sick with the flu) and indirectly (lack of access to routine medical testing, “elective” procedures, and testing).
Very often fixation on a single threat obscures other risks. The  COVID-19 mandates place risks on several essential church ministries. In addition, new risks have manifest due to the extensive use of online tools for maintaining communication.
It is important for church leaders to understand these risks to establish an overall context. Despite reductionist arguments on both sides, the issue is not binary (e.g. “Abide by all state requirements vs. people die.”)

Ministries

The state-mandated lockdowns directly affect the teaching and disciple-making efforts of the church by forbidding all activities. While online communications can act as a stop-gap, it can never replace in-person interactions (and presents new risks as described below). The risks are short term (e.g. lack of exposure to regular teaching) and long term (e.g. an increased tolerance for missing church activities move to parachurch online sources, inconsistency, lack of continuity, and breaking bonds that encourage disciple-making).

The lockdowns also threaten the critical fellowship aspects of the church. There is the threat of community dissolution due to friction over the perceptions, political implications, and the narrative of the pandemic. In-person interactions have been severely curtailed (this problem is exacerbated for those who do not have local family or friendships outside the church). Outreach efforts have been halted as personal interactions with the aged and infirm are severely limited. In-person counseling has been paused, as have any evangelistic efforts. Less demarcated but as important are the everyday interactions of believers with non-believers in workplaces, recreation venues, and other public areas. There is also the threat of stress-related issues due to worry, fear, concern that can manifest as sharp responses, anger, impatience, and other unpleasantries.

The church’s witness also suffers through this time. There is an emerging threat of division over the method and timing of resuming the ministries of the church, compounded by the politicization of all aspects of life fueled by reductionist media outlets that thrive in conflict. The risk to the church’s testimony is binary, for there will be those who arguing that by open “too soon” a church will be “risking peoples’ lives” while those that argue the church should reopen immediately will question the commitment of the church to scriptural mandates that place ministry over government edicts.
A church can be accused of “breaking the law” even as the governor’s orders are contradicted by other levels of government.[6] There may be disaffection with church leaders who are perceived as abiding by state orders that directly contradict scriptural mandates.

While some will argue that abiding by the prevailing norms is a “good testimony,” this approach ignores all other risks and consequent harms this imposes.

No matter the response, compromise, in this case, is difficult: The church either resumes ministry or does not. Any decision will be met with dissatisfaction from some elements of the congregation and the greater community. Therefore, the leadership’s decision-making process must consider perceptions by various interests across the spectrum. Maintaining the status quo is a decision and not necessarily the most effective testimony.  

Vulnerabilities

All the church’s ministries are vulnerable to harm at this point as a large part of the church has been suspended.

Variables

The only variable to consider is time: the longer the shutdown orders last, the more harm from some risks will increase, though an accelerated opening may increase the risk of COVID-19 exposure or infection.

Assets

The primary assets at risk are the reputation of the church and the commitment of its members. The longer the shutdown order lasts the more likely fissures will arise between those that differ on timing. Some may choose to break fellowship to attend other churches that more closely aligned with their preferred re-opening strategy. While this may seem a less than compelling reason to leave, it must be considered, because the underlying assumptions are not trivial (Does the church answer to the state when the state directives contradict the clear teaching of scripture? Do we believe God is still in control during a pandemic? Do we place fellowship and ministry high enough to risk exposure to this disease?)

Capabilities and Constraints

Constraints are limitations that preclude total mitigation of a risk. Constraints are always present and include money, time, law, facilities and equipment, social tolerance, and available information. Fire is a threat, but lack of funds will preclude installing a whole-building halon fire suppression system.
Capabilities are inherent or available actions that can be taken to mitigate a risk. Fire suppression capabilities include observation, fire extinguishers, and fire prevention practices.

Constraints in the case of COVID-19 are incomplete information[7], state mandates[8], testing limitations[9], health data access[10], limited indoor space to accommodate “social distance” requirements, and limited cleaning staff. Several of these constraints are limited by budget (i.e., indoor space and cleaning staff). Others are externally imposed (state mandates, testing, information).
Despite these constraints, many churches have several inherent capabilities. These include compliant congregations, modern facilities, and a growing expertise in communication technologies. Many churches have volunteers with medical, risk management, technology, building, fabrication, and legal expertise. A unique capability advantage is that a church is not a business dependent on production, inventory, or foot traffic.

Mitigation Strategies

The mitigation options for the health risks of COVID-19 are: comply with all mandates, comply with some mandates, or ignore all mandates. However, there is significant ambiguity as to which mandates apply to churches. Furthermore, the United States Attorney General has warned that “[E]ven in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers...”[11] On May 16th a federal judge reversed North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper’s restrictions on indoor church services.[12] On May 15th U.S. District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove granted a temporary restraining order Friday against the Democratic governor on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Nicholasville. The decision allows in-person religious services that follow social distancing and hygiene guidelines, two weeks ahead of the governor’s reopen date.[13] The legal system is slowly reaffirming the unique protections afforded by the First Amendment.

Since ignoring all mandates can be perceived as reckless, a reasonable course would comply with the mandates that apply to churches and accord with the best interests of the congregation and the ministry (a recommended list based on CDC guidance can be found at the end of this essay).

Beyond the health risks are risks to the teaching and disciple-making efforts of the church. The lack of exposure to regular teaching, the increased tolerance for missing church activities, the move to parachurch online sources, lack of continuity, and breaking bonds that encourage disciple-making are threats that need to be addressed. Mitigation can take many forms, but total reliance upon online communication cannot be the sole mitigation strategy (in the section “Other Threats: Online Communications” below I lay out the limitations and risks of this dependence). Efforts need to be made to extend in-person teaching in whatever forms are possible without irresponsibly flaunting health best practices.

The loss of fellowship threatens the community. Creative approaches need to be considered to replace or supplement in-person interactions – especially with the aged and infirm. Leaders need to resume in-person counseling using virus mitigation best practices such as distancing and frequent cleaning. Church leadership must also acknowledge and continually address stress-related issues due to worry, fear, and concern.

The church’s witness must be carefully guarded from the emerging threat of division over the method and timing of ministry resumption. The church must clearly articulate the division between mandates of men and mandates of God and stand firm on those issues without apology. The church must also be sensitive to the wide variety of opinions within the congregation, and work hard to provide frequent, well-reasoned, and scripturally sound guidance and policy explanations. Leaders must also recognize differences of opinion and remind members that those differences do not grant superiority or favored status. People who argue for immediate reopening must be treated no differently than those in favor of continued quarantine.

Other Threats: Online Communications


Most churches have increased use of “virtual” activities as a temporary expedient for ministry. However, online communications are not without risks. All systems have various conditions buried deep in the ubiquitous EULA (End User License Agreements). Most include legal language that surrenders various privacy rights and remedies in exchange for the use of the platform. Even online platforms that tout privacy controls are subject to sophisticated data-gathering attacks.[14]

These abuses of privacy are elusive and therefore underreported. For example prayer requests posted to a church-hosted site may become accessible information through nefarious data-gathering activities. The person may post with a full expectation of privacy yet may never be aware that his “requests” became data about him. He will never know the reason he was turned down for a job was that the prospective employer did not want to accept the risk of a cancer relapse. Another person types “Amen” under a link for a sermon where a specific behavior is condemned may be subject to overt (or more likely covert) sanction as a “hater,” blocked from promotion because her views are “too extreme.”
Online activity must be assumed to be public. Some are aware of this and accept it, but most are not aware how pernicious this invasion into private life has become. Even if people are scrupulous in their use of websites may not be aware how much data is being captured each day. Everyone who carries a smart phone has created a historic trail of locations, activities, health provider visits, buying preferences, associations, and connections to privately-owned corporations (primarily Apple and Google).

Smart Phones have become personal tracking devices (a fact largely unknown by most users, since various aps default to continue collecting data even when the app is not in use). The average smartphone user touches her phone 2,617 times a day, with extreme phone users touching theirs more than 5,400 times a day.[15]

A typical smart phone user has within his pocket a device that tracks where he lives, where he sleeps, who he sleeps next to, that there’s a guest in his house, when he wakes up, his interests, who he follows, his email contacts, what he eats, how long it takes him to prepare his breakfast, who he eats breakfast with, who he is married to, where she works, what time she leaves, when she arrives, how fast she drives, where she exceeds the posted speed limit, his exercise activity, his typical heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature, his medical concerns, his bank account balance, the companies he owes, how much he has saved for retirement, and his Amazon purchase history.

Most people are initially shocked when presented this information, but old habits die hard and they quickly resume “life as normal,” with the assumption, “I have nothing to hide.”

Sadly, this naive approach assumes everyone agrees on what activities should be hidden and which are acceptable. The further we drift from societal moral consensus, the more likely an activity will be deemed as threatening, hateful, or even immoral.

Consider some recent examples:
  • ·    The chairman of the board of the Jelly Belly company donated $5,000 to an organization that provided therapy to children struggling with sexual identity. For this he was widely condemned and Jelly Belly subject to boycotts.
  • ·       The founder of clothing chain Urban Outfitters donated $13,150 to former Senator Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. For this he was widely condemned and Urban Outfitters subject to boycotts.
  • ·       The Journal News published the names and addresses of everyone with a gun permit in two New York counties. Several other web sites and news publishers followed suit.
  • ·       A student’s parent complained of finding pictures of a Georgia public school teacher drinking wine on her personal Facebook page. School administration said the images “promoted alcohol use.” The teacher was forced to resign.
  • ·       In May, 2020, the San Antonio city council unanimously passed a resolution that makes terms such as “Chinese virus,” “Kung Flu,” or “Wuhan virus” a hate crime. Anyone writing using these terms on a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram post is subject to prosecution under Federal Hate Crime laws.
  • ·       A paper published in the International Journal of Work Innovation warned: "Job seekers should be aware that their future employers are closely observing their Facebook profiles in search of a window into their personality...Though this practice raises many ethical issues, it is an emerging phenomenon that is not slowing."
Anyone that communicates online must be aware that all words, gestures, and behaviors uploaded to websites may at some point be considered “hateful” or “violent.” All past comments, likes, and connections may be surfaced out of context and used to damage reputations of the church and of individuals. In other cases, birthdays, names, addresses, car models and other data may be used to build a digital footprint, used to trace activity across the web or parse out a password to a bank site. Paul warns us in Titus 1:15 that “Unto the pure all things are pure...” Sadly, this often leads to naivete that can be very hazardous in a globally connected online ecosystem. Therefore, while online communication is helpful, it must be used cautiously. Church leadership needs to be aware of the risks and work to mitigate those risks. A careful review of tools, license agreements, data storage and recovery, and privacy must be conducted to identify and mitigate the risks of misused online information.

Summary

Severe harm to an individual causes injury or death, while severe harm to an organization results in dissolution. Organizations dissolve every day for a variety of reasons, from market changes to mergers and acquisitions to outright failure. Yet the church is not a mere organization -- it is the local representation of the Body of Christ on earth. Therefore, the consequences of harm to the ministry and testimony of the church are far more severe.

Political matters become unavoidable when state actions intrude upon the church. Various state Governor’s lockdown orders are such a case.[16]

In a free society any panel of experts must be subject to critique. This is true for any scientific, academic, or professional debate: experts disagree on causes, effects, and best paths forward. Within our own congregation, the acceptability of lockdown mandates is a contentious issue.[17] Within any large group of people there will be some who are credulous, others who defer in order to keep the peace, and some who are predisposed to assume the worst. In the ambiguous center are most people who are not quite sure who is right, who has an agenda, or whose proscriptions are trustworthy.
No church that seeks to honor God actively incites divisions that cause separation. Reasonable accommodations can be made or even accepted levels of tolerance enable people to attend and worship in harmony.

COVID-19 has prompted a variety of mitigation strategies, from nationwide lock downs (Spain, France, Germany, Italy) to regional quarantines (USA) to personal awareness and avoidance (Sweden). These strategies have political implications. Therefore, it is impossible to remain apolitical when addressing this topic, for politics are how we aggregate, diffuse, and exercise power. That power has been exercised in such a way that it intrudes upon the ability of the church to function as a church.
Those seeking to resume church gatherings are chided with the cliché that “the church is not a building.”[18] Nevertheless, buildings are where we gather for worship, instruction, and fellowship. These activities are commanded, not merely suggested.

Challenge: Relationship to Government

The current situation raises a key paradox of the relationship of church and individual believers to the state. The church has wrestled with this relationship since Pentecost. Peter and John were arrested because the Jewish authorities were “greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” This was not mere squabble over religion — this was a significant social, economic, and political challenge to the status quo. This “new teaching” threatened the temple economy and the uneasy tolerance of Rome, challenged the established social order, pit the educated against the uneducated, suborned tradition, and exposed the injustice of a system under which Jesus was tried and convicted:
Acts 4: 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” 21 When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened;

In many regions of the world today Christianity is an oppressed minority. In those areas the relationship is clearly delineated, making the choice simple: survive. In most of the West, churches are still open, and Christians gather and practice the norms, traditions, and rites of the faith.

Augustine described this relationship in his City of God, where he described differing domains of interest. Sometimes those domains overlap: an example would be the state’s interest in buildings that meet certain standards of access and safety. In other areas the domains are clearly separate: the pastor preaches the truth of the Word no matter the “officially acceptable guidance” from the state.
But which laws must we abide by? Various levels of government have issued contradictory mandates. Recently several counties determined to open ahead of the state governor’s timetables.

At the same time the Federal government defers on some topics to the states but contradicts state guidance on others. A clear example of inconsistency is the mandatory mask rules imposed by many states. The CDC’s guidance reads: “CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain...” Yet the Pennsylvania Department of Health has decreed masks are required.[19]

What is the message if we disregard a law? (We’ll concede for sake of argument that the orders have been deemed “lawful” by the state). Proponents of a “quiet witness” approach will argue that it is our duty to obey the government (Titus 3:1), that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13:1) and upholds the good of all (1 Pet. 2:14), and that Christians should respect and honor those in authority (Romans 13:4). Further, we are commanded “...to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you...” (1 Thessalonians 4:11).


These verses are aspirational, but not necessarily normative. Jesus, Peter, Paul and others contradicted edicts when the state overstepped its bounds. Pushback against illegal orders has been essential component of Christian witness: Hus before the Council of Constance, Luther before the Diet of Worms, Wilberforce and the Slave trade, Marin Luther King against separate but equal, and March for Life protests against abortion. Confrontation has been a critical element of the salt and light aspect of Christian testimony since the beginning.

Christians have been at the forefront of many changes to society, culture, and laws. These changes include the establishment of hospitals, orphanages, and universities; the promotion of art, literature, and music academies; outlawing infanticide, pedophilia, child abandonment, and abortion; instituting humane prison reforms; granting property rights and suffrage to women; banning polygamy; advancing universal education; abolishing slavery; and the insistence that every person is equal before the law and before God. In every case these efforts were opposed by some elements of the established order.
The promotion of justice, the sanctity of life, the individual as an image of God, the defense of the oppressed all reflect the Christian understanding of the Gospel. The history of the relationship between church and state in the west ranges from tolerance to symbiosis to adversarial.

It is certainly within the realm of Christian testimony to challenge infringements on religious freedom.[20] This confrontation need not be acrimonious, but it must be unambiguous. As citizens of the United States we can appeal to law in the same way Paul was able to appeal to Caesar as a citizen of Rome. There is no guarantee the appeal will be successful, but it must always be an option lest it become meaningless.

There are many risks in life and one of the dangers of freedom is that we need to assess risk and then determine our level of tolerance. Ignoring risk does not make it go away. There is no time when all risk is eliminated. We may do everything possible and still fail miserably. Or we may continually –and unknowingly -- fail but no threat ever manifests. In either case we can’t claim success. We are charged to do the best we can with the resources available. Anything beyond that is in God’s hands.

Recommendations

Churches should establish a path to resume all ministries as early as practical after adopting the following mitigations:

COVID-19 risk mitigations:

·       Establish a COVID-19 subcommittee with medical and risk management expertise to review and formulate disease prevention protocols and policies specifically for the specific church (the following list is adapted from CDC recommendations for business):
o   Focus protections on the vulnerable: such as the elderly, immunocompromised, those with pre-existing conditions, etc.
o   Provide video stream access to all church events and services, with remote access in separate room for Sunday AM worship.
o   Offer alternate building access pathways for those who choose to attend (to include staggered dismissal).
o   Reinforce basic rules of hygiene: cover when sneezing / coughing / yawning, hand washing.
o   Intensify facility cleaning, disinfection, and ventilation
o   Encourage reasonable distancing whenever feasible. Recommend use of mask when in proximity.
o   Train everyone on health and safety protocols. Encourage anyone who is sick (to include children) to stay home.
o   Establish entry protocols to include observers charged with assessing people for symptoms of illness as they enter the facility. Assign medical volunteers who can assess symptoms. Develop a go-no checklist with recommended responses.

Teaching and disciple-making and Fellowship risk mitigations

·       Appoint outreach lead responsible for coordinating and encouraging modified outreach activities.
·       Develop an outreach plan for the elderly and infirm.
·       Establish small group meetings for those who are under age 65 with no long-term health issues (This may not align with existing small group membership) that can meet regularly at church.
·       Establish virtual small group meetings for those who over age 65 or with long term health issues. Provide technical support and devices as needed.
·       Establish regular telephone check-ins for those who are unable to meet or leave a facility or home.

Church witness risk mitigations

·       Establish a Reopening subcommittee with broad representation to continually analyze and address reopening issues, concerns, policies, and procedures. Publicize the names of the members so that the broader church membership can interact with the subcommittee.
·       Communicate frequently and completely: Reinforce safety and hygiene rules, support those who deny access to someone who is sick or otherwise a health risk (example: turning away sick kids from the nursery).
·       Provide online safety best practices training for all staff, volunteers, and church members.
·       Remind congregants that differences in opinion on this topic are expected and that leadership is working diligently to consider all reasonable courses of action.
·       Set a date for resuming church services followed by a date for all other church ministries.
·       Update congregants weekly on reopening progress.
·       Remind congregants to talk to leadership, the Reopen or COVID-19 subcommittees, or security if there is a concern with any mitigation protocol or any potential risk.


Risk Assessment Glossary

Probability is the weighted likelihood of an event occurring. Many events occur with such regularity we assume a probability of 100% likelihood of occurrence (such as the sun rising in the morning, or snow accumulation in winter). The closer to a probability of 100% the more prepared we should be to mitigate (e.g. address in a useful way) the event when it occurs. Smart people living in Buffalo own snow shovels. Events with lower probability -- such as meteorite striking your house -- are possible but occur very infrequently. Thus, we don’t install ballistic shields to guard against meteorite impacts.
A threat is a person, circumstance, or force with the ability and opportunity to cause harm. Some threats are active, with an intentional malice that seeks to harm a particular target. Other threats are arbitrary and yet can still cause harm. A sinkhole forming in your basement may be very harmful, but there’s no “intent” by the earth to swallow your house.
A vulnerability is an opening or means where harm can be inflicted. An unlocked door makes your house vulnerable to a thief.
Harm is damage or loss if a threat manifest. For example, a fire can cause loss of property, injury to people, and damage to church reputation.
Variables are factors that if changed, increase or decrease the likelihood and/or the severity of the risk. An example of a variable would be the number of people in a building: If a fire broke out, the probability of harm would be greater with 500 people than 50, for it would take longer to get a large crowd out of the building and it’s more likely that someone would linger behind or go the wrong way.
An asset is something that’s been cultivated and demands protection to avoid loss. In business, assets are people, information, facilities, processes, and capital (money). In the military, assets are personnel, information, weapons, support equipment, facilities, locations, and time. Church assets include reputation (e.g. witness), people, organization, facilities, and property.
Mitigation is any effort to minimize the probability and/or consequence of a risk. Any mitigation is limited by constraints that preclude comprehensively addressing all threats For example: To address the threat of fire the church must determine what capabilities already exist (extinguishers, alarms, fire prevention practices, frequent inspections) and which need to be added to address the risk (sprinkler systems, fire drills, annual site survey). Some mitigations are cost prohibitive: a facility-wide halon-extinguisher system may be the most effective fire suppressant, but the cost exceeds the annual budget.




[1] The basic formula to assess risk: R = f(T, V, A)  Where R (Risk) = the P (Probability) that a T (Threat) will exploit a V (Vulnerability) to cause harm to A (Asset)
[2] A Risk Assessment Glossary is provided at the end of this letter
[7] COVID-19 has been muddied by politically-motivated assertions, troubled model-based prognostications, disingenuous statistical analyses, and contradictory pronouncements by equally qualified experts. On statistical bias, see interview with Marc Lipsitch, Professor of epidemiology at Harvard University: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coronavirus-covid-19-press-conference-with-marc-lipsitch-03-04-20/
[11] “[Attorney General] Barr says government 'may not impose special restrictions' on religious gatherings.” The Hill, May 2020. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/492751-barr-says-government-may-not-impose-special-restrictions-on-religious
[12] “NC judge sides with churches, blocks Gov. Cooper’s restrictions on indoor services.” The Christian Post, May 16, 2020. https://www.christianpost.com/news/nc-judge-sides-with-churches-blocks-gov-coopers-restrictions-on-indoor-services.html
[13] “Federal judge halts Kentucky governor's ban on in-person church services after lawsuit”  Fox News, May 17, 2020. https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus-kentucky-church-service-gov-judge
[16] “This guidance will stay in place for the duration of the reopening process until there is robust testing, community-wide surveillance, contact tracing, or other means to mitigate the spread of the virus.”  “Robust” and “Contact tracing” remain undefined and thus unattainable indefinitely. See: https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/
[17] Dismissing this as the concern of a mere minority further exacerbates the problem. For every outspoken critic of lockdowns there are several quietly assenting.
[18] Christians have known this since Ephesians 2:19-21 was written.
[19] “Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html
[20] The US Constitution is unequivocal: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Pennsylvania Constitution is equally clear in Section 3: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Enough

Many people are starting to resist the host of ever-increasing tyrannies being imposed by the government. Several states (including Pennsylvania) have protests planned.

The media is casting this as “Protests to re-open the economy" (and by implication choose more sickness and death over making money).
As usual, the news people get it wrong.

This is resistance to government overreach. Return to work is one of several expectations.
We have placed large elements of life on hold. We have enabled tiny tyrants who feel “empowered” to slap, punch, yell at others who deviate from the “guidelines.” We’re hostage to models that have proven wrong in every way (every model has been adjusted continuously. That’s not a “model” — that’s a guess).
Governors have issued decrees on what is “essential” and who is “non-essential.” We’re told where we can go, who we can associate with, what we must do.
We've had enough.

The American people are not insisting that the “economy open.”

The American people are not choosing "the economy" over "lives."

The American people are insisting on a return to rule of law under the Constitution and Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Wednesday, April 15, 2020

A Reasonable Demand

April 15, 2020

 [Government Elected Official name and address]

 [Your Address]

 I’m writing today as constituent and concerned citizen. Over the last several weeks the combination of media hyperbole and “expert” predictions have been not merely incorrect, but disastrously wrong. Our country is currently in a state of induced coma. Our churches, schools, museums, libraries, and nonprofits are deemed “non-essential” and are ordered closed. Tens of thousands of people cannot work remotely and are without employment. Hundreds of thousands of others are on the brink of economic disaster.

Meanwhile, fatalities directly caused by COVID-19 are nowhere near projections. Models (with margin of error variabilities exceeding 400%) are adjusted daily without any reference to baselines which would immediately demonstrate the poor predictive capabilities of these same models. Comorbidities are ignored, while risk populations remain unclear, and transmission rates, viral loads, and susceptibility are deemed unimportant.

The Models Have Been Poor Predictors

At the end of March, we were warned of "2.2 million US Deaths" from COVID-19. A week later the estimate was revised to "200,000 fatalities." The latest claim is "60,000 by August." Not a single model used as impetus for emergency mandates has been correct. (The British Medical Journal concluded: “[The] proposed models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic.” See https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328)

Yet, even these numbers are skewed, as the figures only count people who seek medical care. COVID-19 displays a wide range of presentations from asymptomatic to a mild cold to severe pneumonia. In addition, CDC guidance has been that mild cases should stay home. Thus, many cases are never tested and thus never counted.

Suspect Infection Rates

We’ve been told otherwise healthy people coming within six feet of a COVID-19 asymptomatic person will likely be infected. Yet there were over 4,000 passengers and crew on the cruise ships Rotterdam and Zaandam that docked in Miami on April 2. There was a grand total of nine confirmed COVID-19 cases. Over the course of the cruise, 97 passengers and 136 crew presented with influenza-like symptoms that were not assessed as COVID-19 (see https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241740696.html). Four people died of COVID-19, yet we still don’t know the age, sex, or other underlying conditions of those who perished. Nevertheless, these enclosed, floating involuntary test sites suggest the transmission rates are nowhere near the worst-case claims.

Suspect Input Data

Limited testing and inconsistencies in the attribution of the cause of death means that the COVID-19 fatality rate is not accurate. How can we continue to impose the most crushing (and unconstitutional) mandates in history based on flawed data?

Data Inconsistency

The COVID-19 fatality rates of confirmed cases run from a low of 0.96% (SD) to 5.8% (MI). Nationwide the average is now 3.8% with the majority of states 2% or less. New Jersey reports 99.54% of all COVID-19 as “tested positive,” while the average in the US is 15^, and the range drops as low as 2.6%. How can these wildly variable numbers be used to assess anything? Is New Jersey testing people who are already known to be positive? Then why test? Or is the test protocol so broad that anyone exhibiting any symptoms (which are common for a wide range of maladies) decreed as “positive for COVID-19”? This variance makes no sense -- unless the input data is inconsistent (which is the most likely explanation -- see Occam's razor).

The CDC’s Reporting Guidelines require hospitals to categorize as “HOSPITALIZED” all “Patients currently hospitalized in an inpatient bed who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19.” Fatalities are reported for those “Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who died in the hospital, ED, or any overflow location on the date for which you are reporting (see: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/covid19/facilityqrg-508.pdf)

The problem here is a COVID-19 fatality using this definition does NOT ascertain whether a person died from the virus – instead, the data comingles confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection with every other cause of death. Therefore, a person who suffers a heart attack after years of hypertension is listed as a COVID-19 fatality. Since the input data is flawed, the resulting statistics are skewed.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health recently commented that “Most people recover from the coronavirus but the health department does not offer statistics on how many recover.” Why not? Wouldn’t this be an essential metric to determine the danger posed by this particular virus strain? Or are we to be subject to draconian (and I would argue unconstitutional) restrictions based on flawed, incomplete, and ignored data?

Hospital Capacity

There are 931,203 staffed beds in 6,210 hospitals in the USA (data from 2019. See: https://www.aha.org/statistics/2020-01-07-archived-fast-facts-us-hospitals-2019). There are currently 562,506 known COVID-19 cases in the US (13APR2019. See: https://www.bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates) Only between 5 and 15% will require hospitalization. In fact, current guidance from both Federal and Commonwealth authorities is to stay home if symptoms manifest that are “not life threatening.”

Yet, even if every person who tested positive during the “peak” were to be hospitalized, that would leave a buffer of 40% capacity. If we use 10% of the total cases number as requiring hospitalization, that’s only 6% of all available hospital beds (this does not include emergency hospital beds such as those provided by the US Army and Navy and charitable organizations such as Samaritans’ Purse in NYC).

The Quarantine Orders are Too Broad

The CDC’s Recent study on hospitalization rates of COVID-19 patients states: “Most of the hospitalized patients had underlying conditions, some of which are recognized to be associated with severe COVID-19 disease, including chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus.” (See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm)

This means there are identifiable vulnerable subgroups who most certainly should be protected from infection using a variety of protocols. But there is no justification for treating the entire population as  susceptible or even infected when there is very little data to support such an assertion.

The State’s Definitions of “Essential” and ‘Non Essential” are Arbitrary and Pointless

Ever since the Governor’s list was issued (and revised several times), not one official has been able to explain the criteria used to determine “essential” or “non-essential” other than broad brush categorizations that are ambiguous to the point of futility.[1] The most egregious example is the final line in the Governor’s List (“Private Households: May Continue Physical Operations: No”).

The “Shelter in Place” orders are Useless and have Extended too Long

First, the exception provisions are so broad no one was truly quarantined. All a citizen need state is that he or she was “gathering essential supplies” or “caring for a minor or elderly person” and an exception would apply.

Second, we are long past the incubation periods where asymptomatic carriers were potential virus time-bombs. In a study on 181 confirmed cases, COVID-19 had an estimated incubation period of approx. 5.1 days (95% confidence interval is 4.5 to 5.8 days) (Lauer et al.). This analysis shows 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so in 11.5 days (95% confidence interval is 8.2 to 15.6 days). If this is the case, why are we extending this order more than two weeks?

Finally, doesn’t it make sense to focus amelioration protocols on susceptible populations rather than the entire population?

False Choices

In 2017, 647,457 Americans died from heart disease, 169,936 died from accidents, 160,201 died from Chronic respiratory disease, 146, 383 died from stroke, 121,404 died from Alzheimer’s disease, 83,564 died from diabetes, 55,672 died from influenzas and pneumonia, and 47,173 deaths were self-inflicted suicide. In 2018 there were 67,367 Drug Overdose deaths in this country. Divided by 365 that’s 185 deaths every day of the year. (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf)

The fatality rate of all humans remains 100%, with time the only variable. It is a false dichotomy to suggest it’s “people dying or the economy.” Humans are defined by the pursuit and sustainment of life which REQUIRES “economic” activity. The reductionist "lives or the economy" claim ignores the impact a faltering economy has to health in the short, mid, and long term. Unemployment has jump from 3.5% to 4.5% in a month. 401k gains over the last two years have been wiped out. World markets have lost $25 trillion in value. The CARES act has added $2 trillion dollars to the national debt. Thousands of businesses will not survive the shutdown. Meanwhile hospitals are far under capacity and proposed emergency field hospitals have been cancelled. (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-cathedral-coronavirus-patients-st-john-the-divine-canceled-today-2020-04-10/)

We’ve established that the data have been sloppy, undependable, suspect, and in far too many cases completely absent. Should a national and state emergency exist with this level of sloppy reporting, variable assessment, unclear mitigation, and dubious transmission modalities? We're supposed to keep guessing or will there be some hard, actionable data at some point? The prevailing “Safety First” mindset is trite an indefensible. Life is filled with risks. Every person faces risks each and every day. Those who live long quickly become adept at assessing and mitigating those risks and then moving on with life in the face of varying odds. So be it – this is life on Earth. No one expects (or should expect) Government at any level to allay all fears and mitigate all risks. Therefore, I vigorously urge you to remove the restrictions, restore the foundational freedoms Americans have defended, suffered, and died to keep, and defer to the will of your true overlords, the American people.

A concerned citizen, taxpayer, and voter,

[your name]



[1] The Governor’s own cabinet making business is deemed essential, however, as it’s critical that lifesaving Corian be installed to help stem the tide of Grim Death (see https://www.inquirer.com/business/spl/pennsylvania-coronavirus-wolf-home-products-essential-business-life-sustaining-20200330.html)


Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Carrying Concealed: Some Considerations

I’ve carried for over 20 years (gasp!), but still remember the transition from casual carrier to dedicated carry.
First, you need to get over the discomfort (yes, it’s supposed to be “comforting, not comfortable” but if you’re miserable you won’t carry. So get a firearm and holster that work for YOU. Don’t fall prey to the carry mode du jour).
Second, after confirming the clothing and carry combination do not advertise, stop worrying that “everyone knows I have a gun.” They don’t and won’t IF you worked through the carry mode that works for your body type and clothing.
Third, carrying regularly forces you to consider proficiency. If you don’t go through the day wondering “If x happened, would I be able to make an effective shot?” You’re not serious. Get training, get proficient, and remain proficient. A box once a year shooting bullseye won’t cut it. Move, shoot, move. Draw and fire. Practice emergency actions. Practice strong and support hand. Practice at unknown ranges. Toss out the bullseye targets and hang t-shirts on target placards.
Fourth, realize that the unlikely gunfight will be followed by an inevitable legal fight. Get educated on the law of self defense. Learn the expectations of what is “reasonable” in whatever locale you carry (it varies). Behave in a manner that is not provocative, hostile, prideful, or otherwise stupid. If you go looking for trouble it will find you, and your use of a handgun won’t assure a happy ending (bad guys are armed, too. And even a bad shot hits the target once in a while).
Fifth, subscribe to YouTube videos that review gunfights captured on security cameras. It’s cheap learning and will force you to stop mentally templating gunfights according to movie plots (which are invariably wrong).
Finally, assess yourself before you go out armed. If you’re on meds, angry, upset, inebriated, or otherwise distracted, leave the firearm at home until you can get yourself squared away.
One more finally: drop all “jokes” about “offing people” or double tapping or other nonsense from your vocabulary. If you’re ever pleading self defense in legal proceedings you don’t need an acquaintance testifying under oath about your cavalier attitude about killing. That isn’t considered “reasonable” by The Average Jurist and my tip the scales of justice against you.
Carrying a firearm should make you a more serious, less volatile, more mature, and more careful. If not, leave the gun carrying to others.

Friday, December 20, 2019

New Zealand's Experiment

New Zealand ended a national gun buyback program after failing to achieve its dubious objectives:
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun amnesty and buyback scheme earlier this year, after a March shooting in Christchurch where a suspected white supremacist gunned down 51 Muslims in two mosques.
More than 56,346 prohibited guns have been removed from circulation so far, within the range estimated by consultancy KPMG in an independent report, Police Minister Stuart Nash said in a statement. “However police have consistently warned the problem is we just don’t know exactly how many guns are out in the community,” Nash said.
Gun buybacks are favorites of clueless politicians who want to use taxpayer money to "do something" about "illegal guns."
The problem is, many of the guns turned in are non-functioning or worse, have been used for a crime but are then eliminated from evidence after the typical "no questions asked" gun is exchanged for money or gift certificates.

The New Zealand case is instructive, for certain firearms were declared "prohibited." Once that is done, anyone who continues to possess a "prohibited" firearm is by definition a criminal.
The National Police Minister Stephan Nash declared: “Those in breach of the law face risk of prosecution and up to five years jail, as well as the loss of their license..."
The pattern is clear:

  1. Offer a "voluntary gun buyback" for "prohibited" firearms
  2. Act surprised when the buyback is not 100% effective
  3. Warn those who don't comply with the once "voluntary" system

This approach links the term "prohibited" with an entire class of firearm (in the NZ case, all semi-automatics). Law-abiding people equate "prohibited" with "criminal."

Congratulations on now branding a significant portion of the population criminals.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shooting-guns-idUSKBN1YO05B

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

What Are We Defending?


Churches present unique security concerns. While a church must protect against harm to people and damage or loss of property, a church’s testimony is a unique quality subject to loss or damage. Businesses consider reputation and good will as assets, but it’s likely that a church’s testimony is its only asset, as congregational members change over time, buildings change, but ultimately the testimony of the church endures.

While new people can attend and buildings rebuilt, a poor testimony can condemn a church to a quick or slow death. Either way, the damage is deep and the results inevitable – unless God works a miracle.

Few churches have the resources to implement security access controls, and even if the resources are available, churches must remain open and welcoming to members, visitors, and strangers.
There are no clear rules for church security, as a “church” is simultaneously an assembly of individuals (some known to each other, some unknown), a place of business, and a corporation. Each definition carries different expectations for safety and security.[1]

Therefore, it’s critical that each church consider, document, and then adhere to security guidelines that comply with the jurisdictional law, the church’s ministry, and the testimony of the congregation.

Before implementing a security protocol, consider what you plan to protect and how. For example, you may want to implement a "no weapons on site" policy. But this will require installing metal detectors and guards at each entrance. What will this do to your church testimony? In some areas, this may bolster the church testimony. But in most parts of the United States, this would be considered extreme and would damage the church testimony. Would heavily armed, uniformed security guards hinder or help your church testimony? What would happen in the immediate aftermath of a civilian self-defense shooting on your property? What would be the best result? The worst?

Would security cameras be an asset or would it be off-putting?

While protection of people's physical security is important it is not binary (completely protected vs. untrammelled exposure to all hazards). It's a continuum, and you need to work through what is possible given the fiscal, physical, staff, capability, culture, and testimony aspects of each security measure.



[1] The ancient laws of sanctuary are not recognized by any state or federal law. Religious institutions don't have special permission to harbor criminals or protect them from the government.





Friday, February 1, 2019

Constitutional Carry in South Dakota

South Dakota recently passed legislation to eliminate permit requirements to carry a firearm ("Constitutional Carry").

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group, called the legislation "dangerous" and said it would have "devastating effects."

So -- how much time do we have to prove whether the effects are actually "dangerous"?

Gun-control groups insist every advance in 2nd Amendment rights will be "dangerous." And yet, violent crime has declined 49% between 1993 and 2017

Everytown claims "gun crimes" increased where permitless carry has passed:
States that have passed permitless carry legislation have seen a substantial increase in firearm violence.
  • Since Arizona enacted permitless carry legislation in 2010, the annual total of aggravated assaults committed with a firearm in the state increased by 44 percent. That increase represents 1,519 more gun-related aggravated assaults committed in 2016 than in 2010.2
  • After Missouri passed a permitless carry bill in January 2017, the city of St. Louis experienced a 23 percent increase in aggravated assaults with a gun in 2017 over the total in 2016. That represents 484 more gun-related aggravated assaults in 2017 than in 2016.
However, both examples ignore the urban centers in which such assaults occurred. They also ignore the fact that these assaults occurred by people who were carrying illegally due to prior felonies or certain misdemeanors. Finally, the data in the St Louis Crime Reports do not support EEGS claims of a "23% increase." Arizona's crime statistics also refute the conclusion that Constitutional Carry resulted in an increase in violent assault (14,264 violent assaults we other than a firearm, while 5,219 assaults involved a firearm).

FBI data shows large differences by state and city. In 2017, there were more than 600 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska, New Mexico and Tennessee. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont had rates below 200 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

The Assertion that Firearms are designed to kill

A common "talking point" circulating in the "gun control" debate is: "Firearms are designed to kill." I have s...