Unmasking Moral Disagreements
One of the challenges of living within the diverse community that is a local congregation is that people will come to widely different conclusions about what is good and right, especially on questions that Scripture doesn’t speak directly to or that involve rapidly evolving data.
Aside from the more egregious examples, which often are due to radically different understandings of Scripture, there are often a wide range of lesser issues that have moral implications and on which disagreement is not grounds for complete disassociation.
Right now, as people grapple with floods of conflicting information about how to deal with a novel virus, there are different perspectives on whether to wear masks, whether to ignore guidelines limiting the size of gatherings, etc.
Some have clearer moral answers than others. For example, given the currently available data, it is fairly clear to me that wearing masks properly in enclosed spaces is a moral duty to protect those around me. There are some that disagree, some for honest, well-meaning reasons. Others have poorer reasons but are unlikely to be convinced of a change of mind based on any argumentation.
This is a time to reason well, look out for our neighbor, but also to show as much grace as we can to those that disagree.
Managing Moral Disagreement
How do we engage with other believers that disagree with us on contested moral topics?
Scripture is timeless truth, it is God’s gift to us that should form our moral conscience and direct our lives.
Paul’s letter to the church at Rome recognizes that Christians are likely to encounter people inside and outside the church who have differing perspectives on moral matters. His advice is simple: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom 12:18)
This is hard to do. When your neighbor plays music too loud, it is hard not to want to be rude back.
Sometimes it is even harder when there are moral questions in play and we have a close personal connection and concern for their well-being.
Do we have a duty to try to convince someone of our moral position?
The answer, I think, is that it depends.
There is a reason why the author of Proverbs 26:4-5 gave us this little chestnut:
“Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
This has been pointed out as an apparent contradiction in Scripture by some skeptics, but it is just an example that shows that sometimes we have a duty to speak and at other times we do not.
Certainly, when we see someone about to devastate their life with sin we have a duty to speak to them to try to convince them to head toward the truth. As James urges his readers:
“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (5:19-20)
Sometimes we have a duty to speak, but we ought to do so consistently with the significance of the moral concern and our relational proximity to the one we are addressing.
By analogy, we would take much more significant action if we saw our next-door neighbor about to accidentally spray weed killer in his eye rather than a stranger in another town about to get himself with water from his hose. Proximity and danger make a difference as to the appropriate response.
In a similar way, we might strongly believe that a particular TV show is morally corrosive, but our response to knowing a fellow Christian is absorbed in that show is different than if they are considering a contract to become an adult entertainer or discussing the logistics for adultery. Our cousin’s Facebook friend whom we’ve never met is not the primary concern of our efforts in discipleship and holding up signs condemning people at a gay pride parade is unlikely to do any good.
In areas of concern that are less likely to lead to imminent harm, wisdom should have us speaking clearly to minimize that harm. We may have to repeat ourselves to be heard.
In areas that are questionable, we ought to speak to those nearest and especially to those who are likely to listen to us. We state our case, move on, and do not violate our conscience.
When it comes to moral matters in the church, we have a duty not to stir up dissent. (Titus 3:9) It’s fine to raise concerns, but once we’ve had the first round of discussions, it does little good to keep hammering away to try to score a win by getting our own way in the debate.
Many conflicts in the church would be resolved if people were a bit more concerned with their own holiness and a bit less concerned with other people’s holiness. This is what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 7:1–5. Of course, that passage has been abused to shut down all forms of contrary advice in some circles. None of us can ever claim to be without a log yet we have a duty to speak in some cases, but the duty to self-examine clearly needs to be considered before we rush to speak.
Masks and the Church
So what do we do when we believe mask wearing is a moral duty and other people refuse to do so?
Sometimes we just have to get used to watching people be wrong. Most of us social conservatives have found ways to live and work with people that have radically diverse opinions on many other issues, and some of these pandemic issues are no different.
The prudent path seems to be voice our opinion as carefully as we can and then let the discussion move on. We do, however, have an obligation not to participate in something that offends our conscience.
The ultimate aim of wearing a mask is to limit our ability to spread the disease. It is for the good of our neighbor, not for our own protection. We are showing concern for our neighbor by limiting our comfort and freedom for their good. Unfortunately, since most homemade or simple surgical masks are ineffective at preventing the wearer from getting infected, mask wearing only works if it is done widely in appropriate settings.
Therefore, if we are part of a congregation that does not mandate measures to reduce the spread of the disease, and we believe that we have a moral duty to limit its spread, then we have a moral obligation not to participate in activities that encourage the spread of the virus. In other words, in this situation, it would be appropriate to continue to livestream or participate in other ways that do not require us to violate our conscience. If we get infected because of a lack of care by those around us, then we have the potential to spread the disease and are not fulfilling our moral duty. If a church decides to conduct services without requiring measures designed to reduce the spread of COVID-19, they should recognize they are obligating some of their congregants to stay away.
But the mask wearers have no duty police those that choose not to wear a mask. Make your case and then take appropriate action. Don’t stalk people’s Instagram accounts to make insulting comments about distance and mask wearing. And, certainly, don’t allow yourself to hope they get someone sick so you can say, “I told you so.” Masks will only be necessary for a season. In a couple of years, the controversy will be a distant memory. It isn’t worth immolating friendships or division of the church over this issue, even if it is worth remaining apart for a time.
And the non-mask wearers should not look down on those who see mask wearing as a moral duty. If mask wearers won’t come to a gathering of people that aren’t taking precautions, recognize that they are following the course they believe is necessary to be faithful to Christ in this life. Imputing motive (e.g., by calling mask wearers cowards) is not Christlike, especially when there is strong evidence that wearing a mask may be an effective way of showing neighbor love. This is what 1 Corinthians 8 is all about. However, if you are asked to wear a mask at church or in another gathering, you should do so, even if you feel it to be unnecessary. As the Apostle Paul explains, liberty is always sacrificed and never demanded.
Conclusion
These same principles apply with our choices in entertainment, the consumption of alcohol, and other things that have nothing to do with a pandemic. We provide counsel to people based on our proximity and the possible harm. In cases of lower harm, if our advice is not taken, we make the choice that protects our conscience, and, as much as possible, accommodates the conscience of our brother or sister.
Especially as misinformation—intentional and unintentional—continues to spread around an evolving situation, we have to navigate these fields with humility. That doesn’t mean that we don’t correct the obvious conspiracy theories or falsehoods, but it does mean that some people are simply going to arrive at incorrect conclusions. In fact, it is possible that our conclusions, which are also driven by available data, may be incorrect.
Grace will help ease the situation in the short term and bring us back together in the long term. In the end, God will adjudicate the rightness or a moral action, and Christ’s blood will cover the deficiencies of the ones in error.
Reading your Bible is a battle. There’s a reason why Paul lists Scripture as the sword of the Spirit in his discussion of the armor of God (Eph. 6:17). More even than that, Scripture reveals God’s character and is, thus, central to worshiping well (Psalm 119). That’s why reading the Bible is a battle.