A Novel Commandment? Coronavirus, Masks, and Access to Christ

“Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers” (Isaiah 58:3).

No one can add to the Creed. No one can invent novel commandments. A Christian’s right standing with and within the Church is established on the right confession of the Faith, consistent attendance at Services, and regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. The truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and handed down in the Church is the established norm for Christian life. This is summed up in the Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, and is binding upon the conscience of the Christian. No one has any right to add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). In this light it is worthwhile therefore to heed St. Jude’s admonition to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Across the planet, our local parishes debate over issues of policy and policy-implementation. Regional bishops, local priests, and parish councils all struggle with a cacophony of concerns, and so they wrestle in their various overlapping spheres with unsettling questions concerning what is safe, what is necessary, what is wise, what is scientific, what is sanitary, what is loving, what is risk, what is authoritative, what is legal, what is essential, and so many other questions. And so bishops, priests, and laity, all seek to do what appears right in their eyes. The result? Chaos. For “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). And even this smattering of considerations only scratches the surface, and so the saying becomes true of many of us, that “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). One thing, however, which seems fundamental to the foregoing considerations, and goes beyond distinguishing between such things as churches and schools, churches and seminaries, churches and businesses, is the simple question: What is sin?

Citing the New Testament teaching found in 1 John 3:4, St. Philaret of Moscow in his Longer Catechism (Question 156) answers the question, "What is sin?" stating: "Sin is the transgression of the law."

What is the Law? In Question 65 of the same Catechism, St. Philaret states that the doctrine of charity is "In the Ten Commandments of the Law of God." Question 485 states that the means we have to know good works from bad are: "The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments." Questions 489-491 state in sum that the Ten Commandments are the chief and general commandments, and that they are binding upon all Christians.

Significantly, Question 572 asks of the extent of obedience to those in authority: "How ought we to act, if it fall out that our parents or governors require of us any thing contrary to the faith or to the law of God?" Himself quoting Acts 4:19 (and hearkening more generally to that section of verses 1-31), St. Philaret's answer is plain:

In that case we should say to them, as the Apostles said to the rulers of the Jews: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; and we should be ready, for the sake of the faith and the law of God, to endure the consequences, whatever they may be.

That being the case, it is clear that the law of God as summarily contained in the Ten Commandments, being moreover the essence of the Biblical notion of love, is explicit, established, and inviolable. Furthermore, the conscience of man, evidencing the inward law of God written on the heart of man by God (Question 486), acts inwardly as a judge to either accuse or else excuse him and so cannot be bound by that which is not of God. Of course, fallen man being subjected to ignorance, delusion, and passion, his conscience is not infallible and therefore must be conformed to God's law, in this case the explicit law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments, they being reinforced in their binding authority. In sum, the law of God understood in its objective outward and conformably inward senses cannot be superseded or suppressed by any law of man, the Apostles even refusing to cease preaching Christ but suffering rather to be jailed - as simultaneously a civil and a religious matter - than to cease publicly proclaiming Christ.

Having answered the question as to what is authoritative in the life of a Christian, it is essential to point out the divine Law's finality as an authority regarding the duty of man. For example, the Preacher declares, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And not only is such obedience to the commandments the whole duty of man, God's holy law is also irreformable, as He even commands:

“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

And again:

“You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it!” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

In other words, it is not possible to invent new commandments. Nor can new sins be invented. Only by a necessary consequence can novel circumstances cause the unchanging principles of God's commandments to be applied to novel circumstances.

With that in mind, it is worth asking: Is mask-wearing a new holy law? Or put another way, is not wearing a mask a novel sin? Can a Christian's conscience be bound therefore to mask-wearing? This is not a petty question, for some would appear to be attempting to erect a novel commandment, and bind men's consciences to something that is not found in God's commandments. Since sin means to transgress God's law, and sin alienates man from God, then identifying sin as sin is no trivial matter. For excommunication can only occur in reference to the transgression of God's law and to unrepented sin. One cannot be excommunicated for not sinning, but for sinning. As it currently stands, many are essentially adding to God's commandments, even adding to the Creed that must be confessed in order to be a Christian in right standing with God and consequently in the Church. As it stands, the path to the Chalice has a new obstacle: Masks. 

Now, there is no authority in man or council to add to or subtract from God's law, the Creed, or from God's holy Word. We must be humble beneath them. The very Gospel book is placed on the head of the bishop as he is consecrated, proclaiming that his identity and his authority are under the Word of God, submitted to it utterly. In this way the Church proclaims that the essence and content of authority in the Church, the nature of a bishop's very overseeing, is naught but an expression of someone else’s will, namely the Lord Jesus Christ's as taught in His holy Word and preserved by His Bride, the Church. (It is worth noting that in principle the canons of the Orthodox Church are expressions, extrapolations, and/or articulations of Biblical teaching, not parallel additions to the deposit of faith, not a parallel authority. See Questions 17, 23, and 24 of St. Philaret's Longer Catechism) Therefore neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor parish council can add to or subtract from what is received in Scripture and Tradition. God's commandments must remain inviolate, for “the sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

With that in mind, it is not possible rightly to bind the conscience of a Christian by adding additional criteria through which he must qualify himself so as to approach the Chalice. Not wearing a mask cannot be turned into something that must be confessed as if it were a sin, which is to say contrary to the faith. No one has the power to make not wearing a mask such a sin, and therefore the mask cannot be turned into a confessional item upon which failure to confess (i.e. failure to wear) renders one barred from access to Christ in the Chalice. It is a simple point, but incontrovertible.

Therefore, it is impossible in principle to bind the conscience of a Christian such that he must wear a mask in order to be inside the Church and thus the local parish in a right-believing manner. It is evil to functionally excommunicate a right-believing Christian for not doing something that is not a sin, that is not of the essence of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." As Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In other words, we cannot add hindrances to a faithful Christian’s approach to the Chalice for the sake of a novel commandment of men.

As Christ warns:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

As He further explains:

He called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10-11)

This teaching of Christ was expressly directed at condemning arbitrary, man-made purity laws. It is also worth considering that this revelation was in relation to questions of hand-washing, which is also today considered a matter of basic hygiene and etiquette:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:2-3, 6)

As helpful - and even necessary - as it may be to wash one’s hands (or, for that matter, wear a mask), teaching it as a commandment such that one’s conscience is bound, and one’s access to God hindered, makes void the word of God and so is flatly rejected by Christ. As God in the flesh, Jesus knew perfectly well that washing one’s hands helped reduce disease, and yet He still persisted in rejecting it as a condition of right standing with God. And this principle is inviolable. We cannot add criteria which places an obstacle between Christ and His faithful children. This means that masks cannot be rendered a necessary condition for being considered a faithful Christian, and being faithful is the only true and binding condition by which a person may rightly stand in the Church. The faithful cannot be excluded from access to God for not abiding by the “commandments of men.”

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

By excluding the faithful from access to God by attempting to force the faithful to wear masks in order to enter and attend the sacred Assembly, we invent novel conditions by which Christians must abide. This is contrary to faith, for we cannot add to the deposit of faith. We cannot write new sins on the books, establish new commandments, bind consciences, and practically excommunicate the otherwise faithful according to the fluctuating mind of fallen man’s insights and policies, no matter how helpful those insights and policies might be, for only "the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

The Hard Middle: A Way Out of Intractable Conflict

What everyone knows is that the conflicts surrounding our current understanding of COVID are legion. Generally speaking, it has become clear that there are two sides, two methods for dealing with it. Each side, naturally, has more or less extreme versions within their camp, but by and large there are two sides, and these two sides each think the path of victory is through seeing the championing of their particular viewpoint.

But as a phenomenon of political conflict, what can be gleaned from observing these two sides? In other words, What can be observed of the two sides - while not at the same time entering into agreement or disagreement with either? Can this approach afford any helpful insight? I would say so, and I would like to take the next few paragraphs to explain why I think this is the case.

Phenomenologically, what can be observed is that there are two sides, two sides reflecting on and commenting on the nature of a disease. Thus, we are immediately confronted with the significant but simple fact that both sides are centered on the same problem. That fact is both a help and a complication. It is a help because it means the argument is shared, but it is a complication in that the problem can’t be removed by simply clarifying that both parties are talking about a different subject.

Now, in addressing the problem presented by this disease, both sides see hosts of consequences that are extremely critical. Here, however, is where the complication may in fact become helpful, which will be made clearer below. Both sides are submitting empirical arguments for their respective cases. Empirical arguments and hypotheses suggest a realm of fact, which ought to take the debate out of the realm of personal opinion, but here is where a certain temptation arises.

The temptation for each side is natural enough: to win their argument by making the better, stronger case. If one can resist this temptation long enough to observe the fact that both sides are citing the same types of sources, such as doctors, scientists, medical studies, and scientific research, then one will observe that this is not a settled scientific or medical argument, a situation unlike the debate of whether the earth is round or flat. This is significant because it indicates that both sides are seeking to be responsible and relevant, respect the same kinds of sources, methods, etc. Neither is arguing their case by referring to irrelevant or outdated sources.

This is the complication that ends up being helpful, because its very intractability will end up meaning that neither side ought to be legislated at the political level. Politicians are neither doctors nor scientists, and to side with one group at the expense of the other points to an arbitrary use of power and therefore an inherent injustice. Legislating unconfirmed science is to use the power of the state to force an unconfirmed conclusion, a political act which could very well cause far more harm to the cause of discovering the actual solution through peaceful and multi-faceted debate and research. 

It is a mistake to use the political sphere to decide matters of science, or force into public practice unverified conclusions and hypotheses. The strength of both sides thus indicates that the question cannot as of yet be settled. Like pulling rocks out of a rock slide that traps people underneath, the idea of “just doing something” is obviously folly, for to pull the wrong rocks risks the greater harm to those trapped underneath. In other words, to side arbitrarily in such a medically controversial case risks the possibility of magnifying the problem beyond all proportion, even if non-action would also cause (unconfirmed) problems.

The outcome of this present dilemma therefore means that the complicated and empirically oriented medical and scientific arguments are pushed into the arena of individual persuasion, which is to say personal belief, even if that personal belief is backed by expertise and (admittedly incomplete and controversial) medical research. Too many experts disagree in diametrically opposed ways. People are confusing belief about a medical situation with political legislation and policy advocacy. Involving the machine of politics means that what is fundamentally a matter of scientific and medical inquiry becomes a matter of political force.

Both sides have abundant support for their positions; both sides see their positions as preventing doomsday scenarios; both sides are trying to act out of compassion; both sides are trying to avert injustice. This fact being observed indicates that the only viable political action is to remain politically neutral until there is greater medical and scientific consensus. Legislating the belief of the experts on only one side of an issue necessarily creates havoc, for politicizing science and medicine in this way creates political ramifications unrelated to the science and medicine, even obstructing their progress.

This is the hard middle. It is not a via media, but an attentive neutrality, which is to say it responds to the controversy by stating there is not yet enough agreement in order to move to either side. Here one must remain firmly in the middle, refusing the temptation to seek to legislate a one-sided inclination.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping