Late edit: I discover I should have credited "Death by Door Handle" as a concept to Dr Bell (National Medical Director’s Clinical Fellow, House of Commons) who originally coined it.
A lot of people have been picking up on this article in Christan Today by
David Baker. And it's left me scratching my head. It's about the possibility that a minister, by praying or streaming a service alone in church, might have inadvertently killed a load of people by infecting them with Covid19.
Now I'm no big beater of the drum one way or the other about where people choose to stream solo worship from. I've said that streaming from the Moot House would at least mean I didn't have to
rearrange my entire living quarters every time i want to lead the Beaker Folk. But if in a local context, a minister and their congregation agree that the minister should stream from the church rather than their luxuriously-appointed library or their hot tub (or their hot tub in the garden) then who am I to tread on their own theology of place? The risk of walking or even driving to a church, opening, leading a service (suitably locked in) and then going home again seem slight to nil.
The example David Baker gives for why there is a risk is a bit of a "parallel universes" one: that having left the church, the minister leaves Covid19 virus on the door handle. A passing care worker who has presumably forgotten all about there being no private worship in churches, tries the door handle. They go home, develop Covid19, pass it on to the people they care for, and everyone suffers and possibly dies.
But that is just one example of what might have happened. A correspondent has told me that in his road a couple of weeks ago, a succession of domestic CCTV cameras filmed the same man trying the handles of all the cars. What if, instead of walking to church to stream, the minister uses the spare time to drive to the country for recreation, leaves Covid19 virus on the car door handle, and the thief infects everyone in the street? Some might see this as poetic justice for the thief, but everyone else also suffers.
What if, instead of driving the car, the minister decided it was a good time to give it a wash, and a piano fell out of an upstairs window with terrible effects?
What if, instead of going into church, the minister had gone for a walk, brushed against a stem of aquilegia, keck or bindweed, that same unfortunate care worker had brushed against that - having decided that, instead of sitting in church, a nice bit of sunshine might be good - etc etc?
Or what if the minister had washed their hands before unlocking, then again before leaving the church, and left nothing of viral nature on the door handle? What if the care worker, being a care worker and alert to the threats of the outside world, simply washed their hands when they got home? In that case, nothing happens.
And then consider. A door handle in the outside world, probably on a south-facing door that gets the sunshine, is vanishingly low in its risk profile compared to even being ten minutes in someone's breathing, speaking, presence. The transfer from sneeze / cough (I presume the minister has ignored advice, sneezed or coughed into their hand during the streamed service) via hand to door handle to another hand - which is then not washed - would still deliver low levels of virus. Frankly if this case were likely enough to be considered, we should all hide in cellars for the next 10 years to be on the safe side.
And what "journalistic endeavour" could possibly prove that the minister streaming 9 Lessons and Carols had caused this terrible disaster, and not the care worker sadly picking up the virus from someone they passed in the street, or an asymptomatic family member? I don't believe journalists - who these days mostly seem to earn their money by curating tweets - are going to have the technology to determine that viral RNA is still on the door handle weeks later as the tragedy unfolds.
And one person on their own going into church is not a crowd of US fundamentalists trying to pray the virus away. Not a situation where thousands could catch the virus. I can't imagine that the Archbishops said to themselves "I see that if you put thousands of people into a church all singing their heads off and handling the same snakes then they can spread the virus. Let's not let Father Midge of Ss Mary and Mungo worship all on his own in case he lives in an area of dedicated door handle graspers". More likely they were worried that the priest might make their worshippers feel left out, or they might suffer pressure from people saying "do you mind if I just join you". And they likely didn't realise, given their own backgrounds, just how deeply the places - and the things within them - mattered to some clergy.
Personally, I'd say home was best a few weeks ago when infection rates were much higher - just one less bit of travel for most clergy (not those who more or less live above the shop) and therefore one tiny bit less risk, and I mean tiny. But if the congregation wants it due to their theology of place, then streaming from the building will do no harm. But let's embrace the upside - whether streamed from a church building or a vicarage, or the Methodist minister's garden labyrinth or the Lay Minister's summer house or the bishop's Jacuzzi, this time has enabled many Christians to join in, and to re-learn or learn disciplines in daily prayer. Which will have helped a lot of people's mental health. And may outlast the pandemic.
And don't go grabbing random church door knobs. Or, if you do, please wash your hands. You don't know where the vicar's been.
Please support this blog
