Yes, I realise that I could have explained a bit further the arguments for suspending services – and given due weight to the argument that it is an act of love for others to suspend the services during an epidemic. A church service is an opportunity for a virus to spread efficiently, just as any public gathering is. However, a church service is different to other public gatherings in terms of its function of being somewhere the word of God is proclaimed, the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist celebrated, and the unity of Christians in the body of Christ visibly demonstrated. I would argue that these functions are so important that they ought not to be cancelled even in the face of an epidemic. The reason for this is that a person’s spiritual health is more important than their physical health – I realise the phrasing is clumsy and I don’t mean to say the body is irrelevant, but rather that our status before God is more important than whether our bodies are healthy. Christians need to hear the word of God to be reminded of the gospel (so it can work upon our tough, idolatrous hearts!) and non-Christians need to hear it even more, so that they can hear how to be made right with God in Christ. The church service is one of the best places for this to happen. Furthermore, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper can only happen in a physical gathering of Christians; not via a podcast, so there are important reasons for the service to be a physical assembling of people.
I am not sure what to do in terms of individual members of the congregation who have swine flu – it seems to me that they might choose to stay away themselves to avoid passing the disease to others. What I would be wary of is any suggestion to non-Christians that if they have, or have had, or may have swine flu, they are not welcome at the service – why should they be turned away from church and from hearing the gospel just because we Christians are anxious to preserve our own health?

And I would also say that it is logical to close the church (although I don’t entirely agree with it) – not due to a lack of faith, but for the health of others. I know that the church in question has non-believers come to its services (so then they could become infected); also, 1000 people together in a room is a big opportunity for the disease to spread! And then those 1000 people go to work the next day, and spread the virus to their colleagues… do you see how this progresses? That’s the practical view, anyway.

The gospel does mean we are completely saved and will not have any disease or suffering in eternity; however, God does not promise that we never suffer or get ill or die in this present age. If anything, the gospel tells us that we must expect suffering; that indeed the saints are destined for it (1Thess 3:3); that we must suffer for Christ’s name (Acts 9:16) and that we enter into the kingdom of God through suffering (Mark 8:34ff.; Acts 14:22). This is not punishment, but it is necessary for our glorification, and God’s glorification (Romans 8:18ff.) and that we might learn to rely on God (2Corinthinans 1:9).

Your point about the precedent is bang on the money… what can they do if others catch it? If a significant portion of the city or their congregation are affected?