By Davis Carlton
Todd Friel of Wretched Network has recently released a video explaining why Christians who don’t support mask mandates should joyfully submit to the mandates of our governments for the sake of Christ. He hopes to impart to his Christian listeners a “Wow, I get to wear a mask!” mentality. Friel acknowledges that many Christians resent the many mask mandates being imposed upon them and many intend to ignore them. Friel objects citing Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 which command Christians to submit to governing authorities “for the Lord’s sake.” Friel also alludes to Jesus’ exhortation to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21/Mk. 12:17/Lk. 20:25). Friel states that he cannot see exceptions to the principle of submission taught in these passages unless we are specifically being told to do something sinful.
Friel suggests that the widespread opposition to mask mandates stems from “21st century Western ideals, particularly American ideals” which reflect America’s “rugged individualism” which insists that the government “keep [their] masks off my body”, as though opposition to mask requirements follows the same logic used by those telling anti-abortion activists “my body, my choice.” Friel did receive pushback from listeners via email and Facebook. In a follow-up video Friel reads a selection of some of the comments opposing his position. Many comments stated suspicions that these mask mandates are politically motivated. Others questioned submission to nonsensical mandates which are pointless at best but could even prove potentially harmful. Friel in many cases acknowledges these complaints and suspicions, but always winds up repeating the same refrain after virtually all of the comments; “submit to the government.” I find virtually everything that Friel says on the subject to be problematic.
Friel makes several arguments to try to advance his case. First is the nature of authority itself. Rom. 13 and 1 Pet. 2 definitely do teach the need to submit to government, but does this necessarily entail that we must do whatever we are told by anyone involved with civil government regardless of their actual authority to make pronouncements on these issues? In the case of mask mandates, many have pointed out that governors and mayors do not have the authority to mandate the wearing of masks because their words are not law. This was even mentioned in one of the comments that Friel read in his follow-up video. Friel mentions the conflict over masks in Georgia in which Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has overrode the mask mandate of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. Instead of acknowledging the substance of this argument, Friel instead states that the “scales should tip towards obedience.” Friel’s suggestion is recipe for tyranny, as it would allow anyone in power to cloak any of their opinions with the mantle of authority reserved to their office, even if their opinions on any number of subjects have nothing to do with the office being held.
Friel states that when 1 Peter was written “Nero was the king of nasty,” and from this Friel concludes that we are to submit to any governing authority no matter how evil or “nasty” they might be. This is an overly simplistic reading of 1 Peter that fails to take into account the broader context of this passage and the circumstances in which it was written. Taken at face value one would think that Christians would be required to submit to the vile tyrants even to the point of death. Friel even seems to allude to this possibility when he states that “Jesus submitted to the government; whose nature we are reflecting when we submit. Jesus submitted to the point of death.”
I was astonished when I heard Friel say this because Jesus’ willingness to die was not born out of a sense of absolute submission to government at all but rather submission to His Father. Jesus willingly submitted to death in the confidence that He would take His life up again in order to conquer death and deliver His people from God’s wrath against sin. Up to the point at which His “hour had come” Jesus persistently evaded arrest even when Jewish authorities sought to try him on charges of blasphemy. Jesus did not sheepishly place His head in the guillotine, but actively resisted the Jewish authorities and called out their hypocrisy and reserved for them His most scathing criticism. And when His case was turned over to Rome, Jesus did not submit to the will of Pontius Pilate when the latter was initially inclined to find no fault in Him. Jesus was no rabble-rouser, but He also did not feel compelled to obey the arbitrary and hypocritical decrees handed down by His Jewish opponents.
Jesus acknowledged that the Pharisees held legitimate authority and even sat “in Moses’ seat,” and commands His disciples, “do and observe whatever they tell you” (Matt. 23:2-3). This sounds like the kind of endorsement that Friel imagines that Paul and Peter give to secular civil governments, but Jesus clearly didn’t feel bound to observe arbitrary and hypocritical rules imposed by those who did not keep the rules they themselves imposed: “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:4).
Jesus frequently ignored Pharisaical injunctions against healing on the Sabbath, noting that those who accused Him of breaking the Sabbath would have at least have been willing to exert themselves to feed their animals on the Sabbath, so why should Jesus have been condemned for healing on the Sabbath? Jesus ignores a Pharisaical hand-washing ritual and once again notes the Pharisees; hypocrisy in imposing arbitrary burdens while ignoring the Law of God (Matt. 15:1-9/Mk. 7:1-13). Jesus’s teaching to obey those in authority was not a demand to slavishly and unquestioning obedience devoid of reason.
The hypocritical nature of lawmakers seeking to impose mask mandates calls to mind Jesus’ words, “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers” (Lk. 11:46). Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York has been one of the most outspoken purveyors of the corona myth was spotted in Georgia without wearing a mask. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot imposed drastic measures which shutdown hairdressers, but this didn’t prevent her from getting her own haircut. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s husband dropped her name to a northern Michigan dock company in an attempt to get his boat serviced earlier than scheduled due to his wife’s imposed quarantine. When this was exposed Whitmer attempted to dismiss this as her husband’s “failed attempt at humor” while still trying to cover it up. Lincoln County, Oregon has exempted non-white “persons of color” from their own mask mandate. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has banned virtually all gatherings including churches gathering for worship, but has decided to exempt Black Lives Matter protests because COVID doesn’t spread when protesting on behalf of “social justice.”
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s family members violated his own shelter in place order so that they could travel to family properties in Florida and Wisconsin which did not close down to the same extent. When questioned about this Pritzker became indignant that journalists would dare to bring his family into politics. Later Pritzker tried to explain his hypocrisy away by actually arguing that these properties were functioning farms and that his family had to go to take care of their animals! No doubt Pritzker’s family had to rescue those poor animals after what must have been a prolonged period of time without being fed.
All of this indicates that politicians at the forefront of mask mandates don’t actually believe their own hype about the spread of COVID. The fact that the politicians pushing the coronavirus narrative don’t believe in their own mandates enough to act in accordance with them demonstrates the same kind of hypocrisy that Jesus denounced and deliberately flouted during his public ministry. Friel attempts to explain his position by way of analogies to God-ordained authority in the family. Friel states that parents are given authority over their children, and they would expect their children to obey even if they weren’t necessarily consistent in the rules that they made or even when their children didn’t understand their parents’ reasoning behind the rules that they were required to follow.
This analogy completely fails. The state does not have the right to treat its citizens as underage children in their minority who cannot possibly understand the government’s inscrutable reasons for doing what it does. Children may indeed be too young to understand rules that parents establish for their own safety and well-being, but this should not be the case for competent adults no matter in what polity of government they find themselves. The state isn’t God regardless of the pretentions of political figures like Nero, Herod, or Pilate. Friel’s argument that we are required to submit to government no matter how much we rightly suspect the motives behind their actions is a recipe for tyranny.