By Ephraim Radner

The COVID-19 virus has churches scrambling. In many parts of the world, including North America, many churches have been closed to public worship. Bishops and clergy have been furiously sending out emails and instructions, plotting responses and strategizing about the days ahead. Lists of “10 Things To Do in Your Congregation” are making the rounds. From my observations, I can generalize about elements in these responses. There are outliers, of course, but not that many.

The first thing I see is the insistent call to comfort and be comforting. People are afraid and uncertain, we are told, and they need to be loved and assured. These directives are aimed mostly at clergy, but filter down from them: you can’t hug anybody anymore physically, but you should try to do it in other ways, maybe even “virtually.” Call people up; create email chains; issue little daily meditations of warmth and security. This falls into a kind of “motherly” mode. And with it comes another motherly aspect, which is the disciplinary call to behave: wash your hands; don’t get too close; obey the rules; remember that other people count; be kind; be responsible. All this represents an almost fierce maternalization of the church and especially of her leadership.

The second aspect of our moment’s ecclesial response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a corollary of the first. If bishop and clergy all become “Mom,” everybody else becomes “the kids.” Thus, with the church’s maternalization of leadership comes the Christian people’s infantilization. They’re scared, worried, need direction and hand-holding (well, only metaphorically). They also need to be told how to behave, how to be nice to others, how to organize their time well.


To be sure, the church as mother and Christians as infants is a well-worn trope. Still, St. Paul and other New Testament writers generally see the “Christian-as-babe” negatively, a mark of immaturity and, however true, something that demands overcoming through learning and growing (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:22; Eph. 4:14; Heb. 5:12-13). Paul as “mother” (Gal. 4:19) or even “father” (1 Thess. 2:11; 1 Cor. 4:14) — though fathers are pretty much absent in the metaphors of the present moment — relates to his churches as a yearning parent who aims, not only at their children’s comfort, but especially at their mature witness. Even where the characterization of the Church as a child is less harsh, as in 1 Peter 2:2, the emphasis is on eager and guileless learning — learning of the Word most of all — for the sake of maturity and steady testimony.

First Peter is a good example of how an apostle speaks to a church in the midst of social crisis. This letter — which is to be the scriptural basis of the July Lambeth Conference, the occurrence of which is now in doubt — is written to a people going through a “season” of terrible “testing” involving persecution, suffering, and death (1:6-7; 4:12-19). The message, for all its nuances, is straightforward: God is sovereign in his will and grace; that grace is divinely offered in Jesus, who calls out and builds up a Church of holiness, obedience, and charitable self-sacrifice; that Church lives in hope for the “salvation” of its people’s “souls” and a life shared in the “glory” of Christ. Watchwords of the letter are sobriety, steadfastness, holiness, purity, humility, obedience, suffering, and of course, hope. And despite language of “babes” and “comfort,” there is neither clerical maternalization nor congregational infantilization going on: the Church’s people are all “living stones,” built into a single temple of obedience, praise, and sanctity of life (ch. 2).

How to form such a people for such a time? Peter offers little advice, beyond the Scriptures and the witness of Jesus himself, and the spiritual power that is granted through this witness. He lays out the stark contrast between this power and human resources: “For, ‘All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.’ And this is the word that was preached to you” (1:25-25). The claim is itself a “sobering” reminder of the fragility of human life itself before the eternal glory of God, and the limitation of human resources altogether.

This brings us to the third aspect of current ecclesial directives in the face of the virus that I have observed: what I would call the “siliconization” of the church. Be creative! Innovate! Try new things! This exhortation is actually linked with the maternalization of clerical leadership and the infantalization of the Christian people. This is because siliconization resonates with the contemporary (educated) maternal concerns of busy parents to stimulate their children’s development. In my day it was “serious” German toys made of wood; now it is math camps, three musical instruments, and Italian lessons (perhaps also basic computer programming).

In academia (sigh) it is about new forms of pedagogical “delivery,” inventive styles of learning, and digital originality. As schools have shut down in the pandemic, and teaching is going “online” (maybe), whole faculties are being asked to spend a week or more later this month being trained in these new methods. You might have thought they already knew how to do all this. It turns out that both faculty and students do not. As some are pointing out, both faculty and students are flailing in the face of having to figure out how to manage Zoom sessions, discussion threads, chat messaging, posting on YouTube, and the rest. Despite Google’s metaphorical reach, most people prefer to read books and listen to lectures in person.

Should we live stream worship at this time? Maybe not. At least we should think about why, to what end, and with what consequences. We cannot, nor should we, seek to give the impression that life “goes on as normal.” It never did, after all. Our lives are fragile, vulnerable, and ultimately subject to the power and grace of God who has made us and will finally take us. Their maturity is marked by obediently living into the death of Jesus, with a hope of sharing in his resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 8:17; Phil. 3:10-11; 2 Tim. 2:11). That is the goal of anything that the church seeks to do as a formative and worshipping body. It is also the case that maternalizing, infantilizing, and siliconizing the church probably doesn’t add much to this goal.

Fr. Paul Couturier long ago wrote a now-famous “prayer for unity” (often used during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity). It is deceptively simple. The second half asks, “May Your Spirit enable us to experience the suffering caused by division, to see our sin and to hope beyond all hope.” The sentiment fits Christian maturity well. What if, in this Time of the Virus, we took this kind of honesty and simplicity seriously? We would “suffer” the fact that we cannot gather for worship; we would experience straightforwardly the burdens of the moment, some of them quite harsh, unveiling our long-standing misplaced commitments; we would tutor hope in a time of stark changes and impositions.

When it comes to worship, we might learn to pray alone. We might learn to use the prayer book with our families, aloud, regularly — using an actual book, turning pages, touching paper. We might learn to sing hymns together, rather than listening to them broadcast through the computer. We might learn to become lonely (or finally to admit that we already are) and to cry out. We might learn to hunger and thirst even for the Bread of Life, for the Body of Christ, as many have done over the centuries in this or that place of desolation or confinement. We might learn to read the Scriptures audibly, for ourselves and with others in our homes. We might let clergy and others make home visits, one on one. We might — I might! — stop telling everybody what to do, and let them grow up.

We might. But we might not.

The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto.

About The Author

Ephraim Radner is a priest in the Episcopal Church (Diocese of Colorado) and professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College, an Anglican seminary affiliated with the University of Toronto. His doctorate from Yale University is in theology.

Related Posts

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lorna M G Harris
2 years ago

Re the last paragraph, while I agree with what you say about praying and singing hymns, you add, “We might let clergy and others make home visits, one on one.” Actually this is not good advice. No one is supposed to socialize one-on-one with those outside their immediate family, those with whom they live on a daily basis (unless of course any of them have the virus). Visiting one parishioner after another carries the possibility of unknowingly transmitting the virus -especially to the elderly who are considered more vulnerable – or catching it.

Ephraim Radner
2 years ago

Lorna: You’re probably right in general. And here we properly follow the advice of public health officials. Good! But there may be cases where such a visit is necessary, and needs to happen — pastoral crises and such like. Precautions can be taken.

Fleming Blishen
2 years ago

Thought provoking. You are right about the hymnals but your bias against the tech doesn’t allow you to imagine how it isn’t one or the other.

This sounds like the old familiarity breeds contempt argument. If we make it to accessible then we take away meaning or value. In my mind not allowing access is much more infantilizing than allowing it. The pain is already there. We don’t need to create more of it. It’s law over grace. I’ll go with grace ie free undeserved gift.

Deborah Baron
2 years ago

I actually disagree with this article. Yes, there are truths in it but on the most part I can’t agree. I don’t believe that caring for and looking after people represents the “maternalization of the church and especially of her leadership.” Jesus himself cared deeply for all people and looked after them in both spiritual and practical ways. He also taught them rules and called them to obey. It is, therefore, both right and proper for us to come to our Father in heaven as a child comes to a loving father. We are taught to do this over and… Read more »

[…] articles addressing these issues that sound, to my pastoral ears, unsafe on the one hand, or grumpy on the other. I’d prefer to avoid both postures, if possible. I believe technology is great […]

2 years ago

Hi! I’d be up for having a discussion on livestream, but not up for the ways you have framed this. While I am glad you see the role of maternal figures in scripture, including the maternal images of God, I am disheartened that you have engendered an observation that brings you “frustration.” Perhaps you have forgotten that women are often the brunt of many male leaders frustrations within the church. Maybe there is a disconnect with your context and mine, but as a woman in ministry, I am weary, tired, and done with seeing female and maternal images seen as… Read more »

[…] the second article, written on March 20th for Living Church, Radner observes three broad trends at work in the […]

[…] can either hit pause as global church for the first time in our history and not continue to meet (This point is better-articulated by Ephraim Radner), or we can decide to “meet” in a ‘less than ideal’ manner, recognising that it is […]

curt gesch
2 years ago

Two questions: 1. Don’t even the most traditional Christians (in terms of what used to be called male headship) hold up the God the Father as caring and comforting? Whence “maternalization?”
2. In order to grow up (mature), Anglicans have always stressed the importance of the Eucharist. How do you think Eucharist can experienced at a means of God’s grace coming to us?

1 year ago

God needs worshipers before laborers; to be sure the lone satisfactory specialists are the individuals who have taken in the under-appreciated skill of love.