Corona and Religion Anne Borsch, Merijn ter Haar, Inken Prohl, Vera Schaer Introduction In the spring semester of 2020, we investigated the topic of COVID-19 and religions within the seminar of the same name. Attention was given to a large range of questions: How do religions, such as religious institutions or public religious figures, react to the coronavirus pandemic? Which answers do they provide in the crisis? What options do they offer in dealing with the coronavirus? And, lastly, how do religions transform in the coronavirus pandemic? Some of the general results of our research are the following1: Because of the ban on public assembly, religious institutions had to alter their traditional activities and services of assembly, as well as their communal religious practice. Religious providers mastered this with sometimes more, sometimes less virtuosity. While in Germany the Protestant Church simply distributed sermons online (Jacobs 2020), for example, the Vatican responded with a digital broadcast of elaborate performances of the Easter rituals (Jürgens 2020). Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim institutions also tried to reach their respective adherents with digital provisions (research among others by Susanne Schweikart). Our research has shown that some Buddhist providers, for instance, were even able to reach a wider audience by switching from an offline to an online mode (research by Laura Brandt, Silke Hasper, and Reinhold Bien). Rituals surrounding burial and grieving could only be performed in very restricted ways due to the ban on public assembly. New, ad-hoc ways of handling these had to be found (research by Kush Depala). Influenced by the coronavirus and the restrictions to social life following it, a tendency towards de-embodiment can be observed in the field of religions on the one hand. On the other, we see an intensification in those religious practices that can be undertaken communally, such as meditations, mindfulness, or yoga exercises where the participants can be connected via image and audio.2 Our article showcases some of the results of our research that struck us as especially important. We present different religious reactions to the global pandemic and their religious provisions for dealing with and overcoming the crisis at the example of the Evangelical movement in the US and religions in China. Particular attention is given to the so-called American exceptionalism and the situation between religion and state in China. Further, this 1 For more see Kunert 2020; Borup 2020. 2 On the digitalization of religion see Campbell 2010, for more results on religions under quarantine see Campbell 2020. Page 1 of 17 article offers a short introduction into conspiracy theories and approaches attempting to explain the increasing spread of those theories. Finally, our article presents some of our conclusions, particularly on the situation in Germany and on the challenges the pandemic poses for cultural studies. Evangelicals and Corona (in the United States) Evangelical Responses to the Pandemic Evangelical Christianity, meaning the belief in the centrality of salvation through faith alone as well as in the centrality of the Bible and missionary endeavors, makes up about a quarter of the American Christian population, making it the biggest Christian denomination in the United States (Pew Research Center 2014). As varied as American Evangelicalism itself is, the opinions and actions of the community regarding the Coronavirus outbreak vary quite significantly between different churches or public figures, as well as throughout the outbreak. Many evangelical churches stopped in-person services and switched instead to live streaming or other forms of remote fellowshipping. Evangelical organizations have postponed events for several week or months and important public figures like Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, have called on their followers and congregants to follow social distancing and hygiene restrictions as a form of living their ‘pro-life’ doctrine (Kobes Du Mez 2020). A sizeable portion of American evangelicals, however, especially public figures with great social influence, has taken instead to questioning or rejecting the measures taken to limit the virus outbreak or even questioning the severity of the outbreak itself. In the United States, 77% of white evangelicals have expressed their confidence in President Trump’s handling of the virus outbreak, and while according to a recent study 20% of all Americans reported having still been encouraged to continue going to church in person, evangelicals were much more likely to do so, with over 30% of evangelicals continuing to worship in person, compared to just over 10% of non- evangelical Americans doing so (Djupe 2020; Kobes Du Mez 2020; Woodward 2020). Liberty University, a well-known private evangelical university, did originally follow the guidelines of the state of Virginia to close the school but later encouraged its students to return to the campus after spring break against the advice of public health experts and the Governor of Virginia (Kobes Du Mez 2020). Liberty’s current president also made comments in March 2020 suggesting the possibility of the Coronavirus being a biological weapon designed by North Korea or China, that the public was overreacting, and that political enemies Page 2 of 17 were using the situation to try and harm US President Donald Trump (Yates Sexton 2020). Similarly, a pastor of a megachurch in Florida was arrested for going against security measures by not closing his church and encouraging his congregants to continue shaking hands as a means of greeting. He denigrated other pastors following the guidelines and cancel their services as losers and questioned their masculinity (Kobes Du Mez 2020; Tallman 2020). Other pastors have called the virus a ‘phantom plague’ or shared other conspiracy theories on the pandemic that are not primarily religious (Tallman 2020; Woodward 2020). What is interesting, is the recurrent view, that the Coronavirus is vulnerable to Christian faith and practice. When pastor Jonathan Shuttlesworth publicly opined that the virus could not be spread via holy water, he motivated his view by claiming that holy water was by definition safe and choosing to not believe in this would negate a person’s whole faith in an almighty God (Tallman 2020). Preacher Guillermo Maldonado publicly stated that God would not let his faithful contract COVID-19 in church buildings (Tallman 2020). Other evangelical leaders of the charismatic variety claimed that, by having god work through them, they were able to cure believers of the Coronavirus. In the case of pastor Tony Spell of Louisiana this served to justify bussing over 1,800 people to one of his Sunday morning services, whom he told that if they were to contract the virus, he would heal them (Tallman 2020; Woodward 2020). And the televangelist Kenneth Copeland has published several videos of himself ‘casting down’ the virus and destroying it by invoking Jesus Christ and god (Kenneth Copeland Ministries 2020). Faith over Fear: Interpretation of the Virus With the Coronavirus outbreak beginning in the United States shortly before the Easter weeks, the holiest Christian holiday, the possibility of being unable to congregate in church during this time presented a threat to a Christian community that so heavily builds itself on both unwavering individual faith and the religious community of the congregations. From this perspective ‘faith over fear’ means not letting the fear for one’s health or life win out over one’s faith in the might and goodwill of god (Tallman 2020). In line with a more general evangelical belief in the constant presence of a satanic threat to Christianity and Christians, the Coronavirus is interpreted as vaguely or not so vaguely satanic and ‘evil’ in the Christian sense. It loses the natural origins that can be understood and (hopefully) combatted by science and instead are often discussed with religious rhetoric that makes it seem almost demonic. The perception is that where people stop worshipping in church and completely change up their daily lives out of fear for the Coronavirus, the devil thrives (Tallman 2020). Somewhat Page 3 of 17 similarly, ‘faith over fear’ can also be one explanation for beliefs concerning COVID-19 being impotent in churches. Belief in the all-might of god, a special personal conversion through the faith, and a potentially literal reading of the bible almost necessitate a belief that God can and will supernaturally protect his faithful and his churches from a dangerous ‘plague’ (Tallman 2020). A different interpretation of the virus, mostly carried by fringe groups of apocalyptic Christians, is as that of a biblical plague, possibly heralding the beginning of the end-times. This is mostly based on passages in Revelations, which refer to seven ‘last plagues’ occurring at the beginning of the biblical end. For evangelicals who in many instances believe in end- times rapture this may be a positive thing; as ‘true believers’ they believe themselves to be saved from all the suffering that is sure to follow. The Coronavirus-as-end-times believers seem to be a smaller number, though. Evangelicals and the Government's Response At the same time, it is also no coincidence, that evangelical criticism against the Coronavirus measures often includes positive reference to the federal government’s pandemic response, negative reference towards alleged attempts to use the virus to politically harm the president or both. Since the mid-20th century a more extreme form of American exceptionalism – the belief that the United States is unique, exceptional, and incomparable to other nations – has become not only prominent in American public culture but also became a fixture in churches and sermons (Yates Sexton 2020). This new outlook on American exceptionalism worships power, hyper-capitalism, and white Protestant culture. It has also led to the perception that America’s enemies are inherently evil (in the Christian sense) and that the evil opposing America is also working through secular media and culture (Yates Sexton 2020).