Masking Our Rights
Photo by Tai's Captures on Unsplash
To mask or unmask.
That is the question.
As states around the country debate how to reopen after COVID-19-induced quarantine, many Americans have begun to protest the limitation of their rights. From salons in Texas to beaches in Florida and bars in New York, frustrated citizens are flouting stay-at-home orders and other social-distancing requirements. “Liberty” and “freedom” are becoming key refrains as protesters declare their right to work, gather in groups, and ditch compulsory masks.
The issues are complex, and so we cannot simply appeal to Wesley’s Three Simple Rules (do no harm; do good; attend upon all the ordinances of God). Those who prioritize the need for quarantine and those who prioritize the need for returning to normalcy can both claim harm if their position is not upheld. On the one hand, coronavirus will spread more rapidly without strict social distancing rules. This will result in higher infection and death rates, and the potential to once again overwhelm hospitals. On the other hand, continuing the quarantine means that many people will face further hunger, domestic violence, and evictions as a result of the strain of joblessness.
Although a global pandemic was not on the horizon for the apostle Paul, he did find himself weighing competing interests among believers. In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul addressed a dispute in which some believers advocated abstaining from eating meat that had been part of sacrifices in Greco-Roman temples. In contrast, other believers felt free to partake in such meals. This was a major question in the Corinthian church, because much of the meat available in the marketplace and restaurants had been brought from these pagan temples. The issue is not a current one for most believers today (although in some parts of the world, idol meats may still present a problem). Nonetheless, the principles that Paul lays down provide an instructive analogy for pandemic ethics.
When Paul writes to the Corinthians on the topic of idol meats, he is responding to a question they have posed to him. Some within the community recognize that meats sacrificed in pagan temples are not tainted because Christians know there is only one true God (1 Cor. 8:4-6). Further, they recognize that one’s diet is not what determines a person’s relationship to God (v. 8). Thus, they believe they can eat the meat without any deleterious repercussions. These believers firmly maintain their freedom to eat whatever they want, and they base their decision upon theological knowledge.
Other believers in Corinth, however, remember when they were previously worshipping in pagan temples. Their experience is fresh in their memories, and they do not want to confuse their veneration. Their understanding of the one God may not be as well-defined as the other believers in the Corinthian church (v. 7). As a result, they do not wish to eat meat, and they are susceptible to the peer pressure of those in the church who do.
You can almost hear the freedom-loving believers snicker, “Fearmongers!” while the more cautious believers wail, “Unsafe!”
Paul’s response weighs knowledge and love, and at first he gives the impression that these are competing considerations. He begins by agreeing with the freedom-professing Corinthians that there is indeed only one God. In a remarkable statement, this first-century Jewish monotheist unites God and Jesus: “…for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (v. 6). To speak of God is to speak of Jesus. Their work is so intertwined that Paul cannot speak of one without having the other in mind. In statements like this, Paul lays the groundwork for the Trinitarian formulations of the later church. And so Paul agrees that the only “god” that matters is the God who sent his only Son to give life to those who believe.
Knowing that there is only one God—and that the “gods” in pagan temples are shams—in no way resolves the question. This knowledge provides only a partial description of God. Paul’s turn toward those with “weak” consciences reveals another aspect of the character of the one God: Christ died for them (v. 11). This speaks to the self-sacrificing love of God. This fuller knowledge of God is crucial for making appropriate ethical decisions.
Thus, Paul warns that our attitude should not cause us to destroy those for whom Christ died. In Corinth, the freedom-loving believers were pressuring those with weak consciences to eat meat. When this bullying was successful, the result was that the weaker believers were led into sin. (By acting against their beliefs regarding how to honor God, they were in effect sinning, regardless of the realities surrounding the meat itself.) Paul is horrified that believers should cause other believers to sin. The body of Christ should be building one another up, not tearing one another down. The implication that Paul draws out is profound: if we sin against our brother or sister in Christ, we sin against Christ himself!
The conclusion Paul draws is that the freedom-loving Corinthians must be willing to sacrifice their own rights in order to care for their brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul states that he himself is willing never to eat meat again if it will prevent another believer from falling (v. 13). Paul further supports this conclusion in chapter 9, where he points out that as a pastor, he has a right to be paid. He has not made use of this right in Corinth, because there it would cause a hindrance to the gospel. (Although Paul does not say it here, he is likely avoiding the patronage system that would indebt him to those in Corinth who would expect Paul to return the favor by taking sides in their disputes. We do know that Paul did, at times, receive help from other churches—such as the Philippians—but because of the partisan issues in Corinth, he refuses to do so there.) At the end of this discussion in chapter 9, Paul urges the believers to be self-disciplined, like a runner in a race (vv. 24-27). Christian freedom should never be used as an excuse for self-indulgence. Paul’s emphasis on self-control is not unique to this letter; as he points out in Galatians, self-control is part of the fruit of the Spirit (5:23).
In order to underscore the importance of self-control, Paul points out that the people of God have been punished in the past when they grumbled against God and indulged their desires (1 Cor. 10:1-13). Despite being chosen and blessed, the people of God should never take God’s grace for granted. We must not desire evil—that is, our desires must never supersede the will of God. And, as Paul stated in chapter 8, this means we must never use our freedom to pressure other believers to act against their conscience.
To be clear, Paul does not promote a broad ethic of tolerance that allows any kind of behavior whatsoever. Rather, Paul maintains that all Christians should have the same basic understanding of the Gospel—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the grace of God, the holiness of believers, and so on. But undergirding these standards is a knowledge that the one God is loving and self-sacrificial. When the body of Christ cares for one another, we must reflect these same standards. Although we must always follow the clear commands of Scripture, in areas that are less certain, we are called to offer self-sacrificial generosity towards one another.
In many ways, Wesley reflects these ideals in his sermon, “Catholic Spirit.” Although this sermon has been misused regularly, Wesley promotes the same kind of balance: we must be in agreement in key doctrinal matters, but on other issues, we can offer a generous acceptance of the differences of others. Just as Paul argues for self-sacrificial love, Wesley argues that “there is a peculiar love which we owe to those that love God” (citing John 13:34-35, 1 John 3:11, and other passages). Wesley focuses his sermon on 2 Kings 10:15, in which Jehu and Jehonadab greet one another. Wesley notes that Jehonadab held unusual views—he was a teetotaler from a family with strict religious requirements—and yet Jehu did not hold this difference of opinion against him, but greeted him warmly. They could hold different opinions and yet demonstrate love for one another. Yet this catholic spirit does not mean all beliefs are equally valid; a person with a catholic spirit “is fixed as the sun in his judgement concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine.”
Paul, too, demarcates clear lines in the theological sand. Even though he agrees with the freedom-loving Corinthians that there is only one God, this does not mean that what happens in pagan temples is innocuous. Rather, lesser supernatural beings (demons) are present in pagan temples, and so believers should not participate in those pagan rituals or think that they are harmless (1 Cor. 10:14-22). Worship of the one God must be exclusive (vv. 21-22).
In bringing his argument home, Paul addresses the practical considerations of eating meat in Corinth. He clarifies that if you don’t know the origin of the meat you are eating, then feel free to eat (vv. 25-27). But once you know that it has been part of a pagan sacrifice, you should not eat (vv. 28-30). In effect, you are avoiding potential conflicts of conscience by restraining yourself. Ultimately, Paul commands the Corinthians not to seek their own advantage, but that of the other (v. 24). The principle here is remarkably similar to that of Phil. 2:4. Paul’s overarching ethic is one in which the interests of others are more important than one’s own. The ultimate purpose of this self-restraint is the salvation of others (1 Cor. 10:33)
Thus, even though Paul at first gives the impression that knowledge and love are competing considerations, ultimately, Paul’s logic marries the two: if you truly know the one God, and are known by God, then your theological disposition must be imbued with a love that places the interests of others above your own. In other words, if you truly know the one God, then you must recognize God’s self-sacrificing nature—a nature that believers are called to imitate.
As we consider how to weigh competing interests in a quarantine culture, then, believers are called to set aside our own rights in order to look out for the interests of others. When the best scientific evidence tells us that social distancing and wearing masks prevents the spread of COVID-19 to others, we should socially distance ourselves and wear masks. We must be less concerned with our own personal rights and more concerned with how we ought to care for others: the elderly, the immune-compromised, even the healthy who nonetheless could spread the disease to their more susceptible family members. The nature of this virus is such that we don’t know we are infectious until after we have spread the disease to others. Each one of these persons is a soul who is so loved by God that Christ died for them. Are we so callous toward the lives of others that we will not even wear a mask to protect them, when Christ was willing to go so far as to die for them?
Certainly we must also take into consideration the harsh economic realities for those who have experienced unemployment due to the quarantine. It is hard to place the interests of strangers above those of our own hungry families. Empty shelves at the grocery store only exacerbate our natural sense of self-preservation. It is imperative that we in the church who still have jobs and resources sacrifice to provide for those who do not. If life continues as normal for us, then we have failed to see the suffering surrounding us, and we have not placed the interests of others above our own.
Now that churches are beginning to consider how to open their doors responsibly, we need constantly to ask how we can live out the love of Christ. Our joy at being physically present with others in the body of Christ may need to be tempered by the realities of a lingering, hidden disease that will most certainly continue to harm those within the body of Christ. We must take care not to mock or belittle believers whose consciences urge them to continue wearing masks or avoid worship services out of an abundance of caution. A catholic spirit requires us to demonstrate a peculiar love toward believers, and our knowledge of the one God necessarily involves demonstrating self-sacrificing love toward others. Although many believers chafe at continuing government restrictions, these requirements should be seen not as an attempt to control religion, but as guidance regarding how to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. God forbid it ever be said that the secular government protects those for whom Christ died more faithfully than the church itself.
Suzanne Nicholson is Professor of Biblical Studies at Malone University in Canton, Ohio, although next month she will take up a position at Asbury University in Wilmore, Kentucky. She is a Deacon in the United Methodist Church and serves as Assistant Lead Editor of Firebrand.