Chapter 1: Navigating the Crisis

The prevailing message from the White House regarding the Covid-19 situation has remained both unchanged and perplexing: “It’s going away.” Only the specifics of this message have evolved slightly, shifting from “open the economy” to “open the churches,” then to “open the schools,” and finally, “play football.”

Examining the actions and beliefs of a specific group under the pressures we all face can be quite enlightening. In May, political pressure mounted for places of worship to resume in-person activities. We observed two notable trends during this period. Some congregations chose to reopen and garnered significant media attention for their actions. However, this was closely followed by reports of Covid-19 outbreaks linked to these reopenings.

Conversely, most congregations opted to remain closed and continue with virtual services. Although these groups received far less coverage, they adhered to the guidance provided by scientists, prioritizing the safety of their community members. The rhetoric used by religious leaders to justify their decisions starkly contrasted with that of academic leaders who chose to resume in-person activities. While the former emphasized health and safety, many academic leaders invoked the bravery required for students facing uncertainty, likening their situation to that of soldiers or astronauts.

As political pressure for schools to reopen has continued to build, I felt it pertinent to survey clergy affiliated with The Clergy Letter Project, a network of thousands of religious leaders advocating for the harmony between faith and science. The survey results were telling.

Most clergy indicated they were still conducting services virtually, while a few mentioned adopting a hybrid approach—combining online services with small, socially-distanced gatherings, often held outdoors. Notably, none reported returning to traditional, pre-pandemic worship.

The most compelling aspect of the survey was the rationale behind these congregations' choices to remain virtual. Almost all respondents cited adherence to scientific and health guidelines as the basis for their decisions. They emphasized their responsibility to protect their community, friends, and families.

While opting for virtual services was clearly a health-conscious decision, it did come with drawbacks. Some congregations reported decreased attendance and a diminished sense of community. Interestingly, an equal number noted an increase in attendance and a strengthened sense of community over the past several months.

Despite some congregations experiencing financial challenges during this trying period, they remained committed to prioritizing the wellbeing of their congregants above all else.

In stark contrast, the decision-making processes of these religious communities appeared to diverge significantly from those observed in academic institutions, whether K-12 or higher education. The latter often contextualized risks to students, faculty, and staff by comparing them to other high-risk activities.

A recent op-ed by William Harvey, president of Hampton University, brought a refreshing perspective to this decision-making process. He posed a straightforward question: “Is this safe?” He argued that a clear “yes” would warrant proceeding, while a “no” or “unclear” response would dictate a different course of action. He concluded, “Stating things this simply helped us make the decision not to reopen Hampton University for in-person instruction this fall.”

This straightforward approach is gaining traction among a growing number of campuses and school districts, as well as athletic conferences.

It may seem ironic that many religious institutions were at the forefront of these decisions, often relying on scientific guidance to inform their choices. This is particularly striking, given the common narrative that religion and science are perpetually at odds. In reality, a significant number of religious leaders respect and acknowledge the vital role that science plays in our society, even as some secular leaders appear willing to disregard scientific advice when it becomes inconvenient.

Another important takeaway from this situation is highlighted in a recent survey of college students, which revealed that despite reassurances from college administrations, a majority of students expressed distrust in their universities’ ability to safeguard them and faculty members from the coronavirus upon reopening. This suggests that the health and safety of the community may not be the primary concern for many campuses.

In contrast, religious institutions have seen greater involvement from those most affected by the decisions being made. Very few congregations reported heightened tensions regarding their decision-making processes.

For institutions to successfully navigate this challenging pandemic, communication and mutual respect are crucial. Prioritizing the health and safety of all community members is essential; failure to do so leads to distrust, skepticism, and fragmentation within the community. As we've witnessed with the tragic loss of lives, taking appropriate actions can prevent such outcomes.

One clergy member who participated in the survey expressed a hopeful outlook: “Overall, I believe we will emerge from COVID as a stronger congregation that has been more deeply knit together during this crisis despite our physical separation.”

Chapter 2: The Impact of Covid-19 on Community Trust

In this video, Jordan Peterson discusses the motivations behind attempts to discredit him, highlighting the complex interplay of politics, media, and personal resilience.