Global News: March 2020 Archives

Roy Askins in The Lutheran Witness provides the context:

In 1527, Luther wrote a letter to a friend because the bubonic plague was passing through Europe again and had struck both Silesia, where his friend lived, and Wittenberg, where Luther lived. ...

When the plague struck a town, the wealthy would often flee to the countryside. The question put to Luther was simple: Should a Christian flee this horrific plague?

Here's the letter from Martin Luther: Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague.

Luther judges that someone with an obligation to others must stay, unless he is surplus to requirements. Pastors and preachers, judges and mayors, are all ministers of God to the people in the offices of church and state, respectively, and must remain. But there is an exception:

However, where enough preachers are available in one locality and they agree to encourage the other clergy to leave in order not to expose themselves needlessly to danger, I do not consider such conduct sinful because spiritual services are provided for and because they would have been ready and willing to stay if it had been necessary. ...

On the other hand, if in great weakness [mayors and judges] flee but provide capable substitutes to make sure that the community is well governed and protected, as we previ-ously indicated, and if they continually and carefully supervise them [i.e., the substitutes], all that would be proper.

Luther goes on to cite the duties of servants to their masters, masters to their servants, parents and children to one another, guardians to orphans. "Likewise, paid public servants such as city physicians, city clerks and constables, or whatever their titles, should not flee unless they furnish capable substitutes who are acceptable to their employer."

Luther notes the obligation on all Christians to ensure that the sick around us are cared for:

Yes, no one should dare leave his neighbor unless there are others who will take care of the sick in their stead and nurse them. In such cases we must respect the word of Christ, "I was sick and you did not visit me ..." [Matt. 25:41-46]. According to this passage we are bound to each other in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as he himself would like to be helped.

Luther charges Christians to be bold in caring for their sick neighbors, even in the face of repugnant ailments. He commends the policy of establishing hospitals "staffed with people to take care of the sick so that patients from private homes can be sent there -- as was the intent and purpose of our forefathers with so many pious bequests, hospices, hospitals, and infirmaries so that it should not be necessary for every citizen to maintain a hospital in his own home."

At the same time, it is no sin to protect ourselves from danger as long as we have done our duty to our neighbors:

It is not forbidden but rather commanded that by the sweat of our brow we should seek our daily food, clothing, and all we need and avoid destruction and disaster whenever we can, as long as we do so without detracting from our love and duty toward our neighbor. How much more appropriate it is therefore to seek to preserve life and avoid death if this can be done without harm to our neighbor, inasmuch as life is more than food and clothing, as Christ himself says in Matthew 5 [6:25]. If someone is so strong in faith, however, that he can willingly suffer nakedness, hunger, and want without tempting God and not trying to escape, although he could do so, let him continue that way, but let him not condemn those who will not or cannot do the same.

"Examples in Holy Scripture abundantly prove that to flee from death is not wrong in itself." Luther mentions Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Elijah, and Moses as examples. Luther mocks those who insist that a Christian must remain in danger when it is not necessary:

By such reasoning, when a house is on fire, no one should run outside or rush to help because such a fire is also a punishment from God. Anyone who falls into deep water dare not save himself by swimming but must surrender to the water as to a divine punishment. Very well, do so if you can but do not tempt God, as they are capable of doing. Likewise, if someone breaks a leg, is wounded or bitten, he should not seek medical aid but say, "It is God's punishment. I shall bear it until it heals by itself." Freezing weather and winter are also God's punishment and can cause death. Why run to get inside or near a fire? Be strong and stay outside until it becomes warm again. We should then need no apothecaries or drugs or physicians because all illnesses are punishment from God. Hunger and thirst are also great punishments and torture. Why do you eat and drink instead of letting yourself be punished until hunger and thirst stop of themselves? Ultimately such talk will lead to the point where we abbreviate the Lord's Prayer and no longer pray, "deliver us from evil, Amen," since we would have to stop praying to be saved from hell and stop seeking to escape it. It, too, is God's punishment as is every kind of evil. Where would all this end?

Luther likewise chastises those who refuse to make use of the "man-made" means God has providentially provided to protect them and others:

Others sin on the right hand. They are much too rash and reckless, tempting God and disregarding everything which might counteract death and the plague. They disdain the use of medicines; they do not avoid places and persons infected by the plague, but lightheartedly make sport of it and wish to prove how independent they are. They say that it is God's punishment; if he wants to protect them he can do so with-out medicines or our carefulness. This is not trusting God but tempting him. God has created medicines and provided us with intelligence to guard and take good care of the body so that we can live in good health.

If one makes no use of intelligence or medicine when he could do so without detriment to his neighbor, such a person injures his body and must beware lest he become a suicide in God's eyes. By the same reasoning a person might forego eating and drinking, clothing and shelter, and boldly proclaim his faith that if God wanted to preserve him from starvation and cold, he could do so without food and clothing. Actually that would be suicide. It is even more shameful for a person to pay no heed to his own body and to fail to protect it against the plague the best he is able, and then to infect and poison others who might have remained alive if he had taken care of his body as he should have. He is thus responsible before God for his neighbor's death and is a murderer many times over. Indeed, such people behave as though a house were burning in the city and nobody were trying to put the fire out. Instead they give leeway to the flames so that the whole city is consumed, saying that if God so willed, he could save the city without water to quench the fire.

He commends this attitude, which acknowledges God's sovereignty, does not shy away from duty, makes use of "second causes" through which God accomplishes his healing purpose, but does not tempt God by taking unnecessary risks.

"Very well, by God's decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely, as stated above." See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.

News and opinion on the coronavirus plague, in reverse chronological order (mostly):

Here is a coronavirus COVID-19 dashboard and interactive map showing current numbers of cases from the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. Here is the spreadsheet that feeds the map.

As of 7 a.m. local time on March 16, 2020, Oklahoma had 10 confirmed cases, 29 cases pending test results, and 174 tests that came back negative, with no deaths to date. Here is the Oklahoma State Department of Health COVID-19 dashboard, which shows cases in Tulsa, Kay, Payne, Oklahoma, Canadian, Cleveland, and Jackson Counties.

March 15, 2020: Tulsa's First United Methodist Church announced late Sunday night that one of its staffers had tested positive for COVID-19, and anyone sitting in certain pews during worship on March 8 should monitor their symptoms. The church is closed, March 15 worship was held online only, and the entire staff has been asked to self-quarantine.

We found out this afternoon that one of our staff members received a call last night from the Health Department with news that she has tested positive for the Coronavirus. (As a courtesy to her, we are not giving her name.) Currently, no additional staff members have tested positive for the virus. If you sat in the first three rows on the center right side of the sanctuary in either service on Sunday, March 8, please monitor yourself for symptoms and contact your doctor if you do not feel well.

Many more items after the jump.

Chris Medlock used to make the point that in America, coalitions are formed before the election, while in countries with proportional representation, they happen after the voters have had their say. Giles Fraser considers the UK's decisive December election alongside Israel's third election in a year and explains why this is an advantage for the American and British systems:

The two main parties -- Blue and White and Likud -- are virtually equal, and not terribly different ideologically, with a whole host of smaller parties making up the difference. In Israel, and because of Proportional Representation, politics is all about the coalitions, with the smaller parties having a disproportionate influence on the makeup of any future government. The names of these parties may change a lot, but no amount of reincarnation can shift the underlying stalemate. And no one is confident that after another electoral cycle that things can change this time either.

Back in the dark days of Autumn 2019, when Brexit was stuck, neither able to go forward or backwards, I flirted with proportional representation as a way to break the log jam. I should have known better. For it was First Past the Post that finally delivered a much needed verdict.

For all its various faults, FPTP has the virtue of forcing different political temperaments to enter into coalitions with each other before elections rather than after them. And this means two things: 1) that we have a clearer view of the alliances we are voting for and 2) that the winning side is more likely to have the freedom to take politics forward. Stuck politics is a ghost story, unable to achieve anything, neither alive nor dead.

Elizabeth Babade, a Brexit Party candidate, said at the Change Politics for Good conference on Saturday that she no longer supports proportional representation. She believes it produces weak parliamentary institutions that are dominated by the permanent bureaucracy. Instead, she says:

The focus should be replacing the present ineffective opposition with a more focused party that is ready to properly scrutinise the Tory government not spitefully, hatefully or maliciously but dispassionately & competently. @UKLabour is not up to the task at hand.

James Heartfield tweeted in reply:

Under FPTP parties have to convince a large body of voters their plan is good. Under PR they have to convince a minority to back them; and then they have to convince opponents to compromise. PR tends to encourage 1. Posturing in elections 2. Opportunism in coalitions.

There are problems with FPTP. It turns most elections into a binary choice between bad and worse. New voices struggle to gain a foothold. Tiny pluralities turn into massive majorities. Similar parties can split the vote and allow a despised minority to take office. The Alternative Vote (aka instant runoff voting) would preserve most of the advantages of FPTP, but ameliorate some of the problems.