The Jesus Case for Wearing Face Coverings and Following Other Mitigation Measures Right Now
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the people I’ve seen most opposed to and most aghast about government mandates for face coverings, social distancing and business closings are Christians. After all, that’s kind of what Christians have made their name for.
Not all Christians, mind you. Many of my brothers and sisters in the faith have been advocates for and adherents to those restrictions. Many have done the right thing.
But there are some who don’t. Some are good, kind people who just have a disagreement with the government mandate. Others beg to differ, pointing to some kind of scientific flaw. And others just want to do what they want to do.
I’ve wrestled with some of their arguments. I’ve even had debates (mainly on Facebook, the worst place to debate someone — it’s my fault) with some.
But I’ve come to the place where I think it’s the most Christ-like thing you can do to wear a face covering in public places right now or when you’re around people not in your family. Additionally, this topic fits neatly into three major debates in which the evangelical Christian culture — what I grew up in and what I experience most — has found itself in recent years: the relationship between faith and science, the role of government in life and loving your neighbor as yourself.
One
Science and faith are not opposites. They’re not always the most peaceful of bedfellows, as many scientists and people of faith would tell you. But the reality is that God created science. Do we forget that? Do we forget that it is God who created the universe, and that science’s job, knowingly or unknowingly, is to discover more and more about what God has created?
Dr. Francis Collins, now the director of the National Institutes of Health, is a vocal Christian who led the Human Genome Project, which helped map human DNA for the first time. He was appointed by Barack Obama and re-appointed by Donald Trump to his NIH position. In a 2004 interview with PBS, Dr. Collins said that he “(didn’t) see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve.”
“Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there’s no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It’s unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.”
Those last two sentences really stuck out to me because it’s something I’ve been wrestling with for many years. Does the Bible make the scientific story irrelevant and not true? Similarly, does the science make the Bible incorrect and misleading? I don’t think either is true. I’ve come to the conclusion that Dr. Collins provides in that same 2004 interview:
“If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that’s incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It’s not as if there was a chance it wouldn’t work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They’re not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they’re part of who I am.”
In Collins’ view, science and religion are not opposing parts. They work together to help explain the world we live in and the reason we’re here.
Think about how things we’ve discovered in science could only (in my view) be the product of an intelligent creator. Think of the mother’s ability to feed her young through her own body — not just in humans, but in other animals as well. Think of the intelligence imbued in animals to adapt to their surroundings. It’s no wonder that someone as esteemed in science as Albert Einstein reportedly wrote that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
It’s in this mindset that we address science’s role in the response to the coronavirus. If we believe in the efficacy and relevancy of discovered science, we can see the role of face coverings, social distancing and business closings in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and, ultimately, saving lives. More on that in a minute.
But I do want to address one concern. I posted on Facebook recently about face coverings and one person responded, saying they didn’t trust the science because those same scientists believe that life does not begin at conception. I understand the frustration — I feel similarly, that life begins at conception, therefore abortion in almost all circumstances is murder. I’m not going to get into the science here because I’m not fully educated on it.
But just because people get one thing wrong doesn’t mean they’re wrong on everything. A biased source isn’t automatically an untrustworthy source. I feel like this is a point that’s been lost on so many in this social media age where sources are disposed of like napkins if one item emanating from that source is deemed as biased or untrustworthy.
What a flawed perspective. If your child lies to you once, do you never trust them again? If your friend interprets the Bible differently in one way, do you then immediately discard everything they say about everything? If science gets abortion wrong — not all scientists do, by the way — it doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Science has brought us so many positive and good developments. A biased source, like a broken clock, is still right at least twice per day.
Two
Now, to face coverings. The scientific studies suggest they’re efficient. Multiple scientific studies and surveys conducted in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that states and countries that implemented face covering mandates had smaller growth in new cases and lower numbers of transmission.
For example, a June 2020 article from a pair of researchers at the University of Iowa concluded that “requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.” The paper analyzed the effects of state government mandates on face covering use issued by 15 states plus D.C. in April and May 2020. The researchers estimated that as many of 200,000 cases of COVID-19 may have been “averted” at least in part due to this action.
The peer-reviewed medical journal Respirology published an article in April 2020 examining the “rationale for universal face masks in public against COVID-19.” While at that point there weren’t many studies about the virus — its known presence in the United States was fairly limited at that point — the authors of the report pointed to two realities for the efficacy of face coverings.
First, a study about patients with seasonal coronaviruses found that “surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of viral RNA in aerosols and shows a trend in reducing viral RNA in droplets.” By the way, COVID-19 is a new strain of the coronavirus, a group of viruses that cause diseases. Additionally, the report said, another study found that homemade face coverings “were one‐third as effective as medical masks,” but “even so homemade masks were significantly able to reduce the number of microorganisms expelled compared to no protection.”
The Australia-based authors of the report concluded: “The theoretical rationale discussed here suggests that along with evidence‐based recommendations such as physical distancing and maintaining hand hygiene, universal masking may help in reducing droplet‐based transmission of COVID and contribute to flattening and shortening the curve.”
One thing to note here: The best scientists, I’ve found, will rarely make a claim about something with 100% certainty unless it’s been proven over and over again. I’ve seen some complaints from non-scientists about how “they said two weeks and it would be over” or “they keep changing their guidance.” Yes. That’s how science works, especially with something new and unstudied. Yes, COVID-19 has similarities to other coronaviruses, but it was (and still is in some places) called the “novel coronavirus” because it is new to the world.
In the beginning, face coverings were not recommended. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted that the public messaging around masks was “confusing” early on. But in July, Dr. Fauci told NPR, “It isn’t 100% protection by any means, but certainly the amount that you get is worth wearing it, not only worth wearing it, but really compels you to wear it.”
So as you’ll see in many studies and papers on this topic and many other scientific topics, there are a lot of “could” and “theoretical.” I don’t know how many scientific laws there are, but I’m 99% sure there are more scientific theories than laws. If you don’t remember the difference from middle school, a “law” is something that is for sure, 100% reliable and confirmable. A “theory” is something we’re pretty sure is true, but can’t confirm 100%. We know gravity is a law of science because we’re stuck to the earth, and that’s been proven over and over.
We can’t prove face coverings work beyond the shadow of a doubt because, as of now, we don’t have any studies that say 100% that face coverings are 100% effective in slowing the spread of the virus. Science isn’t built for that, except in a few circumstances. But the science we do have says the virus seems to be limited in spread among those who wear face coverings and in states where face covering mandates are in effect, as long as those mandates are adhered to.
Look at real-life examples. In a July press release, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited two stylists at a hair salon in Missouri. The CDC release said that the salon had a policy requiring clients and stylists to wear face coverings.
“One of the stylists developed respiratory symptoms but continued to see clients for eight days,” the report stated. “The other, who apparently became infected from her co-worker, also developed respiratory symptoms and continued to see clients for four days.”
The stylists saw clients for a median of 15 minutes and ranged from 15–45 minutes. More than 98 percent of clients wore face coverings. The result speak for themselves.
“When customers were asked whether they had been ill with any respiratory symptoms in the 90 days preceding their appointment, 87 (84%) reported that they had not. None of the interviewed customers developed symptoms of illness. Among 67 (48%) customers who volunteered to be tested, all 67 tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19. Several family members of one of the stylist’s subsequently developed symptoms and received a diagnosis of COVID-19…
“The finding adds to a growing body of evidence that cloth face coverings provide source control — that is, they help prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading COVID-19 to others. The main protection individuals gain from masking occurs when others in their communities also wear face coverings.”
It’s no wonder that Dr. Robert R. Redfield — the director of the CDC with 20 years of service in the U.S. Army Medical Corps and the co-founder of the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology — said this:
“We are not defenseless against COVID-19. Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus — particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”
And as Dr. Fauci told the Journal of the American Medical Association, “What we need is to get the message across that we are all in this together. And it’s important because one of the purposes of the masks is that if you may be inadvertently walking around not knowing you’re infected — to protect others from getting infected. We have to keep hammering home with that message.”
Three
Christians and the government have had a complicated relationship from the faith’s inception.
Sort of. It was mainly one-sided at the beginning, it seems. The Roman government sought out Christians and killed them, arrested them, threw them in gladiatorial arenas. But for Christians, it seemed pretty straightforward.
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them — taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.”
Paul’s words to the Roman church — those who would have been at the epicenter of the persecution and killing of Christians by the government — have been used to justify all sorts of things over the years, often opposing things. In June 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the separation of children from families at the U.S.-Mexico border was justified. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13,” Sessions said, “to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.” But as George Mason University history professor Lincoln Mullen wrote in an article for The Atlantic after Sessions’ comment:
“In a study of how the Bible was used in the American Revolution, the historian James Byrd argues that ‘American patriots’ rejected against the notion that Romans 13 required unconditional obedience. Instead, he wrote, they preached from the text ‘to deny that Paul gave kings the right to be tyrants.’ As the Anglican priest and regimental chaplain David Griffith said in a sermon on Romans 13, Paul ‘never meant … to give sanction to the crimes of wicked and despotic men.’”
This obviously has a lot to do with biblical interpretation, a subject that is far too deep to get into here. Interpreting the Bible universally here will be difficult for many, as author Stephen Mattson wrote for Sojourners in December 2019: “If you use Romans 13 to support Trump, then you must also use Romans 13 to divinely sanction the support of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who were both elected as government officials.” The reverse, of course, is also true, if you are to use the Bible that way.
So how do we move forward on this piece in particular? Do we obey the government? I say yes. But that doesn’t mean that everything the government does is good.
For example, the child separation at the border. If that is truly the policy and law of the U.S. government, then yes, it is legal. But that doesn’t mean we have to be OK with that being the policy. We can advocate for a change in the law. We can advocate for a change in policy. But while the law is the law, we live with and we seek to obey it.
Members of my extended family who are libertarian don’t believe that many of the taxes levied on American citizens today are appropriate or good or even legal, but they pay those taxes because it’s the law and they’ll go to jail if they don’t. I remember when I first had that conversation with them, I thought, “Well, then go to jail, or sue, or something.” But now I respect their position. I don’t agree — I think taxes can be a good and helpful thing and help a lot of people, and it’s payment for services we normally think of as free (roads, police, firefighters, etc.). But I respect where they’re coming from and the fact that they’re law-abiding citizens.
I think what Paul is getting at — and I could be wrong, but this is my reading — is that following the law is a good thing. Remember — Paul wrote this at a time when the government was killing Christians! Does that mean it takes precedence over Scripture? No, not always. If the government tells you not to pray, you should still pray, I think. See, even working this out is tricky!
Four
If you ascribe to the idea that following the law is a good and Christlike thing to do, face covering mandates and other mandates protecting public health are things we should follow because most if not all of them are rooted in law.
Take, for example, N.C. Gov. Roy Cooper’s Executive Order 147, which created a face covering mandate in the state in response to COVID-19. The order followed other Executive Orders that covered mass gathering limits, business closures and school closures.
These kind of actions are not new to government. I recently visited the North Carolina Museum of History with my wife, and in the “history of North Carolina” exhibit, I found a posted item that said the state Board of Health “ordered schools, churches, movie houses, fairs, circuses, and other public places to close at the first sign of influenza” in response to the influenza outbreak of 1918 and 1919.
The U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment declares that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This gives states the ability to form their own constitutions and laws.
North Carolina General Statute 166A-19.30 gives additional powers to the North Carolina governor during a declared state of emergency. Among those powers is the ability “to perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population” and “to impose by declaration prohibitions and restrictions in the emergency area.” The face covering mandate, along with many others, falls into this category, I believe. In fact, 166A-19.30 was cited 7 times in Executive Order 147.
This is not to say that all pieces of these orders are completely legal just because there is some justification. In May, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against part of a Cooper order that limited in-person inside gatherings to 10 people after it was challenged by a group of church leaders in North Carolina.
“There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution of the United States or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” wrote U.S. District Court Judges James C. Dever III. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise claim concerning the assembly for religious worship provisions in Executive Order 138, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order, that the equities tip in their favor, and that a temporary restraining order is in the public interest. Thus, having considered the entire record and governing law, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.”
The Cooper administration said in response that they disagreed with the decision, but did not appeal it.
That is the right and legal process to deal with things we believe are against the law when the government does it, and in this instance, the government authority responded and said, in effect, “We don’t like this, but we’re gonna let it go.” Maybe they thought they wouldn’t win, who knows? Maybe it was a political calculation.
But in the end, the process worked, and the right outcome was achieved. I’m not saying that every situation like this turns out this way. But most of the time, the process works.
I think the general distrust of government boils down to the inability to separate politicians and government officials. For example, health officials are not politicians (for the most part). They’re career bureaucrats with backgrounds and expertise in their subject areas. Drs. Fauci and Redfield are not politicians, but individuals with doctoral degrees and years and years of experience in their fields. They’re not making decisions, at least we believe, based on political calculations. It’s not politically popular to say the coronavirus will last until the end of 2021, as Dr. Fauci told Business Insider not too long ago:
“I believe that by the time we get to the end of 2021, if everyone gets vaccinated and we continue to implement the public-health measures that I have been talking about incessantly over the last several months — they’re not universally adhered to — if we do that, plus the vaccine, we’ll get to the point where the level of virus will be so low, and maybe even, you know, close to absent.”
Even then, that’s a lot of “ifs” that have to be met. Contrast that with all the politicians who are claiming their work will bring an end to the pandemic — such as one claiming they will “develop a vaccine by the end of 2020” and “return to normal in 2021.”
Real experts are worth trusting. They’re the ones that form the backbone of government work, like the COVID-19 response. Politicians, maybe not so much.
Five
One of my favorite Bible stories is that of Zacchaeus. It doesn’t hurt that his name is quite similar to mine, but his story and his turnaround is legendary. A recap, for those of you unfamiliar:
Zacchaeus was a tax collector — Luke 19:1 calls him “a chief tax collector” and “rich.” As a Jew, working for the Roman government as a tax collector was quite a scandalous thing and would have earned him scorn from his countrymen. In Jericho, where he lived, Zacchaeus famously climbed a tree to try to see Jesus because he was a short guy. Jesus saw him in the tree and, exhibiting His skill of knowing exactly what people needed just by looking at them, invited himself to dine at Zacchaeus’ house.
The people were upset at this, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner” (Luke 19:7). Something happened at this dinner, though, because Zacchaeus “stood there and said to the Lord, ‘Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much’” (Luke 19:8). Something happened, and he turned from defrauding people to loving them. He went from being a crappy neighbor to a loving neighbor.
If someone who is becoming rich off of people can change to a generous and loving neighbor, anyone can. Money, of course, is a powerful motivator, and Zacchaeus ditched a significant portion of money like it was a bag of trash that needed to be taken out.
This story of first Jesus and then Zacchaeus loving their neighbors fits very well within the current political moment. I’ve been wrestling so much with how to approach people I disagree with right now. How much do I engage? If I think they’re wrong, should I stand up to them or just let it go? Is it OK to “unfollow” or “unfriend” people on Facebook if their posts stress me out or their comments are unhelpful?
The reality is that we need to do more wrestling with these things. Unfortunately, evangelical Christians have made a name for themselves, among many I know and in my Facebook News Feed, as the least loving and least understanding people when it comes to talking about politics and government things. They’re often the first to argue, the first to “beg to differ,” the first to criticize and complain. I don’t have a statistic to back this up, but it’s my experience and I know many others see it as well.
I see very little “love your neighbor” on social media. And unfortunately, I know many of these individuals are nice and kind and are not like that in real life. They give to charities and raise their children and love their wives and husbands well. I know they’re not described in total by how they act on social media, but in the COVID-19 age when we are with people less, social media is most of what we get. And most of what we’re seeing is bad.
It’s such a far cry from what we’re called to as Christians. Jesus said the two greatest commandments — the things on which “all the law and prophets…hang,” Jesus says — are “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37–40). When did these things leave our vernacular?
Six
In my experience, there is nowhere this is lacking most than in the conversation over face coverings and responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, the vast majority of people I know are adhering to the guidelines without complaint. Well, they’re not happy about it — but neither am I, and neither are most people in the world. We don’t have to love the situation we’re in. I’m not advocating for that. Of course we should make the most of it, but that’s another situation.
But most of the people I’ve seen openly advocate for disregarding government mandates and not wearing face coverings are Christians. Popular pastor and theologian John MacArthur has garnered national headlines for continuing to hold massive church services with no social distancing or face coverings against governor orders in California, a decision that has gotten him in severe legal trouble. Musician Sean Feucht has held several “worship protest” events across the country, flaunting social distancing and mask recommendations. Feucht has claimed he’s being persecuted for his faith. Early on in the pandemic, several prominent Christian leaders claimed the pandemic was not a big deal, or that saving lives was not as important as keeping the country “going.”
I relate to the feelings of Jonathan Merritt, a Christian writer who penned these words for The Atlantic in April: “The earmark of Christianity is kindness, compassion, and supernatural love. It’s not fighting back, attacking enemies, settling scores, or leveraging other people’s pain for your own advancement. Some of the most visible Christians in America, it seems, need to go back to Sunday school and discover the loving roots at the core of this great religion’s message.”
What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 lists it: patient and kind. Not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. Does not insist on its own way, is not irritable or resentful. Does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
To me, it seems like wearing a face covering in public, especially when mandated by law, and following social distancing and mass gathering restrictions, fits those categories. Pushing back, claiming the science is junk, saying “I’ll do what I want,” that does not sound like love.
The root of love is putting the other before yourself. The root of love is saying that your preferences matter less than another’s. Flashback to the case of the hair stylists we looked at earlier: “The finding adds to a growing body of evidence that cloth face coverings provide source control — that is, they help prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading COVID-19 to others. The main protection individuals gain from masking occurs when others in their communities also wear face coverings.”
Face coverings are all about protecting other people, and they’re more effective when they’re worn in community. Disease mitigation is all about preventing others from getting sick, and at this point in the pandemic, that might be the most loving thing we can do. So let’s do it.
