Steve says it with evidence. I say it as simple fact. Steve deserves being read.
My only question to Steve: Is Doug Seaton worth the time?
Anyway, Steve took the time. So read his latest post.
___________UPDATE___________
Upon reflection and seeking reasonableness: I do not know Seaton or much about him. "Slimeball" might be inappropriate, and if you've read Timmer's post, he does not say that. He says the man's perspective is warped.
Which I think is the right message, and I back away to that.
When seeing another having a flock that is a life's fiscal support, one can always make circumstantial inferences which may be incorrect.
That said, it shows faint trust in a flock to not fully trust each in it to hew a path in quarantine no different than one fraught with regular Sunday gathering. If there are flock members suspect of need for that weekly regularity, ZOOM them, and there will be less virus risk. If too many for that, has the flock to this point been well tended, or too many being too frail to not need regularity?
In any event, in a pandemic it is less than sensible to be wanting to flock together.
Were the notion that some in the flock might wander and never come back without a regular weekly infusion of rhetoric, that would, if true, present a long term likelihood of diminished cashflow, but not knowing Seaton I really cannot attribute that to him as a motive, in whole or in part, for his wanting to subject others to enhanced virus risk because he believes it's the thing to do.
Straying into and out of a flock is to be expected, and if those doing such straying offset, there remains an equilibrium. Pat Roberts uses media, Seaton seems to discount it as a vehicle for his usage. So be it. Sunday to me is a day of rest. Not of travel to hear some dude preach. Different strokes for different folks has a basis for being cliche.
I do suggest Seaton is being unwise about the health of others. And it does not make him a slimeball, just a person with judgment I believe to be faulty.
And, in closing, I believe reading the Timmer post again will show that to be closer to what Timmer was saying than the headline which I now disclaim as an overreach of circumstantial inference.
The circumstances are there, readers can judge, and opinions can differ.
BOTTOM LINE: I need not criticize or judge Seaton's motives; but instead, his judgment. That shall suffice me.